Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

Men with genetic variants that cause hereditary hemochromatosis have an increased risk of liver cancer and death, according to a large cohort study.

Hereditary hemochromatosis is primarily caused by HFE gene variants. Past research suggested that 81% of patients with hereditary hemochromatosis carry the p.C282Y variant and 5% carry the p.C282Y/p.H63D compound heterozygote genotype.

In a new study, the presence of HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was associated with a 10-fold greater risk of developing a hepatic malignancy among men of European ancestry aged 40-70 years. In addition, men with HFE variants were 1.2 times more likely to die of any cause, compared with men who had neither pathogenic variant.

Janice L. Atkins, PhD, of the University of Exeter (England), and colleagues reported these findings in JAMA.

For this study, Dr. Atkins and colleagues used follow-up data from a large genotyped community sample to estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinomas and deaths by HFE variant status in participants of European descent.

Data for the two linked coprimary endpoints, incident primary liver carcinoma and all-cause mortality, were derived from hospital and death certificate records. Where available, primary care data was also included.
 

Results: Increased risks for men, not women

The researchers analyzed data from 451,186 men and women, aged 40-70 years, from the UK Biobank. There were 2,890 (0.9%) patients who were p.C282Y homozygous, 1,294 of whom were men.

Among the 1,294 men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, 21 were diagnosed with a primary hepatic malignancy. Ten of these patients were not diagnosed with hemochromatosis at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 8.9 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, compared with men without HFE pathogenic variants (hazard ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-16.7; P < .001).

The risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity as well (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P  = .046).

In contrast, female HFE p.C282Y homozygotes had no significant increases in the risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy or all-cause mortality.

Life table projections estimated that 7.2% of men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity will develop a primary hepatic malignancy by age 75, compared with 0.6% of men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variants.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the ancestral homogeneity of the cohort. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patient populations.
 

Implications: Earlier diagnosis and treatment

The results of this study underline the importance of early diagnosis and genetic testing, according to the researchers.

“Tragically, men with the hemochromatosis faulty genes have been dying of liver cancer for many years, but this was thought to be rare,” study author David Melzer, MBBCh, PhD, of University of Exeter, said in a press release.

“The large scale of the UK Biobank study allowed us to measure cancer risk accurately. We were shocked to find that more than 7% of men with two faulty genes are likely to develop liver cancer by age 75, particularly considering that the U.K. has the second-highest rate of these faulty genes in the world. Fortunately, most of these cancers could be prevented with early treatment,” Dr. Melzer added.

“Physicians and scientists have long acknowledged that iron overload is an important cofactor fueling the development of many serious diseases, including cancer,” said study author Jeremy Shearman, MBChB, DPhil, of Nuffield Health and South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom.

“This research is a vital step towards quantifying that risk and should raise awareness of the importance of iron in the minds of both clinicians and patients. Measurement of iron stores and recognition of the genetic risk of iron overload needs to become a routine part of health assessment and monitoring in the U.K.,” Dr. Shearman added.

“The UK Biobank project is a glimpse into the future of medicine where all known genes are tested and then treatable conditions are offered treatment before serious complications develop,” said study author Paul Adams, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London.

This research was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Melzer disclosed financial affiliations with the UK Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study.

SOURCE: Atkins JL et al. JAMA. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.21566.

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for naxitamab (Danyelza) to treat certain patients with neuroblastoma, based on response rates in two small trials.

Naxitamab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets GD2, a disialoganglioside highly expressed on neuroblastomas.

The FDA approved naxitamab for use in combination with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in adults and children aged 1 year and older who have relapsed or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow that demonstrated a partial response, minor response, or stable disease to prior therapy.

Naxitamab was originally developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and licensed exclusively to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. As a result of the licensing arrangement, MSKCC has institutional financial interests in the product, the company noted.
 

Study results

The accelerated approval of naxitamab was based on the overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response in two single-arm, open-label trials: Study 201 (NCT03363373) in 22 patients and Study 12-230 (NCT01757626) in 38 patients.

In both studies, patients received naxitamab at 3 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5 of each 4-week cycle in combination with GM-CSF subcutaneously at 250 mcg/m²/day on days -4 to 0 and at 500 mcg/m²/day on days 1-5.

Some patients also received radiotherapy. At the investigator’s discretion, patients were permitted to receive preplanned radiation to the primary disease site in Study 201 and radiation to nontarget bony lesions or soft tissue disease in Study 12-230.

The ORR was 45% in Study 201 and 34% in Study 12-230. Responses were observed in the bone and/or bone marrow, the FDA noted.

Less than a third of patients had a duration of response that lasted 6 months or more – 30% of responders in Study 201 and 23% of responders in Study 12-230.

The FDA noted that continued approval of naxitamab may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The agency also noted that naxitamab was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy, and orphan drug designation. In addition, a priority review voucher was issued for the rare pediatric disease product application.
 

Boxed warning and adverse events

Naxitamab has a boxed warning about serious infusion-related reactions and neurotoxicity.

The product information notes that, in clinical studies, naxitamab has been shown to cause serious infusion reactions, including anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, bronchospasm, stridor, and hypotension. Infusion reactions generally occurred within 24 hours of completing an infusion, most often within 30 minutes of initiation. Infusion reactions were most frequent during the first infusion in each cycle.

To mitigate these risks, Y-mAbs Therapeutics recommends premedication with an antihistamine, acetaminophen, an H2 antagonist, and corticosteroid, as well as close monitoring of patients during and for at least 2 hours after each infusion in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available.

Based on its mechanism of action, naxitamab can cause severe pain, according to Y-mAbs Therapeutics. The company recommends premedication with gabapentin and, for example, oral oxycodone, and recommends treating break-through pain with intravenous hydromorphone or an equivalent intervention.

In addition, naxitamab may cause severe hypertension. The onset of hypertension may be delayed, so blood pressure should be monitored both during and after infusion.

The product insert also notes that one case of transverse myelitis (grade 3) and two cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome have been reported.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 25% in either trial) were infusion-related reactions, pain, tachycardia, vomiting, cough, nausea, diarrhea, decreased appetite, hypertension, fatigue, erythema multiforme, peripheral neuropathy, urticaria, pyrexia, headache, injection site reaction, edema, anxiety, localized edema, and irritability.

The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥ 5% in either trial) were decreased lymphocytes, decreased neutrophils, decreased hemoglobin, decreased platelet count, decreased potassium, increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased glucose, decreased calcium, decreased albumin, decreased sodium, and decreased phosphate.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act was associated with a significant reduction in breast, colon, and lung cancer mortality, likely because of earlier stage of cancer diagnosis, according to a review published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers reviewed data on 523,802 patients in the National Cancer Database who were diagnosed with cancer from 2012 through 2015. Slightly more than half of patients (55.2%) lived in Medicaid expansion states.

After expansion, mortality significantly decreased in expansion states (hazard ratio, 0.98; P  = .008) but not in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.01; P  = .43). The difference was significant in a difference-in-difference analysis (HR, 1.03; P = .01).

Across 69,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer in Medicaid expansion states, the 2% decrease in the hazard of death would translate to 1,384 lives saved annually.

The benefit was primarily observed in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. For patients with stage I-III cancer, the risk of death was increased in nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P < .001) and unchanged in expansion states (HR, 0.99; P = .64). Mortality significantly improved in expansion states vs. nonexpansion states (HR, 1.05; P = .003).

For patients with stage IV cancer, both expansion and nonexpansion states had improvements in mortality, but the differences were not significant.

“Earlier stage at diagnosis appears to explain the mortality improvement,” wrote study author Miranda Lam, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
 

Clinical benefits, ‘no economic downside’

Under the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, states have the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. As of March 2020, 36 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, with more than 20 million residents obtaining coverage.

Previous studies have associated Medicaid expansion with fewer patients being uninsured, increased cancer screening, and earlier stage of diagnosis, as well as reduced racial disparities in access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery and increased rates of cancer surgery among low-income patients.

“This study adds to an increasingly large body of research finding that Medicaid expansion has improved our ability to fight cancer,” said Coleman Drake, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, who was not involved in this study.

“Obtaining health insurance through Medicaid allows patients to receive recommended preventive cancer screenings, which explains the increase in early-stage diagnosis rates. Detecting cancer early is critical for successful cancer treatment,” Dr. Drake noted.

“It is hard to overstate the positive effects of Medicaid expansion on health outcomes. At the same time, concerns that Medicaid expansion would be costly to state governments’ budgets have not been realized. In short, Medicaid expansion yields many benefits and has no economic downside for state policymakers. Clinical and economic evidence make an overwhelming case for states to expand Medicaid,” Dr. Drake said.
 

Significant difference for lung cancer

Most patients in this study were women (73.6%), and the patients’ mean age was 54.8 years (range, 40-64 years). Patients had newly diagnosed breast cancer (52.2%), colorectal cancer (21.3%), and lung cancer (26.5%).

The benefits of Medicaid expansion persisted after adjustment for education, income, insurance, and race.

The lower mortality in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states was similar across all three cancer types. However, in stratified analyses, the difference was significant only for lung cancer (P = .03).

“Lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than breast and colorectal cancer, and with longer follow-up, it is possible that the lower mortality rates seen for breast and colorectal cancer may also become significant,” the authors wrote.

This research was funded by Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Drake had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lam MB et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024366.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

Clinical encounters with female patients presenting with a STI offer a key opportunity for health care professionals to identify and prevent HIV through testing and prophylactic treatment, reported Kirk D. Henny, PhD, and colleagues of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an effort to quantify HIV testing rates as well as the rate of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women with gonorrhea or syphilis, Dr. Henny and his colleagues performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis of 13,074 female patients aged 15-64 diagnosed with a STI in the absence of HIV. Data was pulled in 2017 from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicaid insurance databases, and the research was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
 

Medicaid patients were more likely to be tested for HIV

A total of 3,709 patients with commercial insurance were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,696 with syphilis. Among those with Medicaid, 6,172 were diagnosed with gonorrhea and 1,497 with syphilis. Medicaid patients diagnosed with either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than the commercially insured patients. With an adjusted prevalence ratio, patients commercially insured with had either STI were more likely to be tested for HIV than patients who had no STI. Prophylactic treatment rates were similar in both insurance groups: 0.15% in the commercial insurance group and 0.26% in the Medicaid group. No patient from either group who was diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis and subsequently tested for HIV received pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) treatment.

STI diagnosis is a significant indicator of future HIV

Female patients diagnosed with either STI are more likely to contract HIV, the researchers noted. They cautioned that their findings of low HIV testing rates and the absence of prophylactic treatment means that “these missed opportunities for health care professionals to intervene with female patients diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis might have contributed to HIV infections that could have been averted.”

The researchers also pointed out that, in a recent analysis of pharmacy data, prophylactic prescribing for female patients with clinical indications for PrEP was 6.6%, less than one-third the coverage provided to male patients.

Future research should target understanding “individual and contextual factors associated with low HIV testing” and PrEP treatment in female patients, especially those with STIs, Dr. Henny and his colleagues advised.

In a separate interview, Constance Bohon, MD FACOG, observed: “The authors present data to document the low incidence of pre-exposure prophylaxis in women who are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV and possible causes for the low utilization of this treatment.” It is important to identify barriers to diagnosis, counseling, and treatment, she advised.

“Multicenter studies to determine the best methodologies to improve the identification, management, and treatment of these at-risk women need to be done, and the conclusions disseminated to health care providers caring for women,” Dr. Bohon said.
 

PrEP is an important, simple strategy for reducing HIV transmission

“Pre-exposure prophylaxis has been demonstrated to decrease HIV acquisition in those at risk by up to 90% when taken appropriately,” and yet prescribing rates are extremely low (2%-6%) in at-risk women and especially women of color. These disparities have only grown over time, with prophylactic prescriptions for women at 5% between 2012 and 2017, compared with 68% for men, Catherine S. Eppes, MD, MPH, and Jennifer McKinney, MD, MPH, said in a related editorial commenting on the Research Letter by Dr. Henny and colleagues in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2020 Dec;136[6]:1080-2).

Given the abundant research demonstrating the importance and ease of prescribing PrEP, the question remains: “why does preexposure prophylaxis uptake remain so low, especially for women and women of color? There are three important issues about preexposure prophylaxis raised by this study: the research gap, the implementation gap, and the effect of systemic racism and bias,” noted Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney.

Women constitute a significant portion of the population that would benefit from HIV-prevention strategies, yet they continue to be excluded from research, they noted. “Much focus on research into barriers and implementation interventions for preexposure prophylaxis have focused on men who have sex with men and transgender women,” the authors of the editorial wrote.

Most women eligible for treatment would be willing to consider it if they were aware of the option, but numerous studies have cited a lack of awareness, especially among high-risk women of color in the United States, Dr. Eppes and Dr. McKinney noted.

Clinicians also need to add it to their growing checklist of mandatory appointment discussion topics, the editorialists said. “We propose standardized inclusion of preexposure prophylaxis counseling during reproductive healthcare visits. This could be aided through an electronic medical record-based best practice advisory alert. … Standardized order sets with the medication and laboratory studies necessary for safe monitoring could facilitate ease of incorporating into routine visits,” they suggested.

“Preexposure prophylaxis is extremely effective in preventing HIV, is safe, and is the only prevention method that leaves control entirely in the hands of the female partner. As a specialty, we have a responsibility to make sure our patients know about this option,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors had no financial disclosures to report. Dr. Bohon had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

SOURCE: Henny KD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec;136(6):1083-5.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication overuse headache presents difficult challenges for both patients and physicians. Physicians worry about episodic migraine converting to chronic daily headache, but this worry can also lead to under-treatment and even stigmatization of patients who aggressively treat their symptoms.

These concerns and others were a topic of a debate at the Headache Cooperative of New England’s 20th Annual HCNE Boston Fall Headache Symposium, which was conducted virtually.

The International Classification of Headache-3 (ICHD-3) defines medication overuse headache as a headache that occurs on 15 or more days per month in a patient with pre-existing primary headache, and that develops because of regular overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medication. The ICHD-3 also says that headache usually resolves when overuse is stopped, though not always.

Paul Rizzoli, MD, took issue with that definition. “If you have a lot of headaches and you take medication for them, then you likely have medication overuse headache. They say the most common cause of symptoms suggestive of chronic migraine is medication overuse. That’s like saying, if you have a rash on your arm, then it is an allergic sun exposure rash. No need to characterize the rash,” said Dr. Rizzoli, who is clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, during the session.
 

Is medication overuse really the culprit?

Dr. Rizzoli began by emphasizing that taking a lot of medication is always a concern. “Significant hepatic and renal and GI toxicities can result from taking and overusing medication of all sorts. What (I am) questioning is whether or not this rather strange, arbitrary, fluidly-defined concept of abortive migraine medicine overuse is truly responsible for causing all of the ills of which it is accused – and just as importantly, if the proposed solution for it, which is to just stop the overused medication and all will be better – if that solution is the right or wrong advice to give to a patient,” he said.

Much of Dr. Rizzoli’s criticism rested on the definition of medication overuse syndrome. He believes that many concerns about medication overuse can be traced to the use of opiates or barbiturate-containing medications, which have known propensities to lead to headaches. Other cases are less well defined, and “it’s not quite clear what the pathophysiology of the condition is – whether or not it’s the same as rebound or withdrawal headache, or if it is the same as a pronociceptive effect of analgesics, also called medicine-induced headache. Both are well documented and accepted, and the idea of opioid-induced analgesia tolerance is well documented and has several plausible mechanisms attributed to it,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He said that changes in structural imaging in the brain suggest there at least two subgroups of patients that are both labeled as having medication overuse headache, one from medication overuse and one from progression of migraine disease. “Based on physiology, medication overuse headache cannot be clearly seen as a unitary condition,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli cited other research on triptans, opioids, and barbiturates that showed an overall conversion from episodic migraine to chronic migraine, with the lowest frequency occurring in patients taking acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine (2%), followed by NSAIDs (4%), triptans (4%), opioids (5%), and barbiturates (6%). A total of 52 patients who became chronic were taking triptans, on average 7 days per month. The 1,370 triptan-using patients who remained episodic took triptans on average 5 days per month. “Does this seem like a huge difference between these two groups? The transformation rate in just this triptan subgroup was about 3%-4%, suggesting that, compared with the overall transformation rate of 3%, use of triptans did not exert much force overall on the baseline rate,” he said. Similar patterns were visible with use of other classes of drugs.

Meanwhile, the higher rates of conversion seen with opioids and barbiturates suggests an effect from these drugs. “Perhaps this data suggests the previously known effect is at play here and argues against the need for a separate diagnosis of medication overuse headache,” Dr. Rizzoli said.

“The evidence that simple analgesics can cause medication overuse headache is especially weak, and the evidence that NSAIDs do is conflicting, with some evidence suggesting they’re protective at some doses.” Other population studies suggested most patients with daily headache do not overuse medications, and studies in India, where analgesics are rarely used, still showed a similar rate of conversion to daily headache. Other studies failed to show evidence that withdrawal of overused medication leads to improvement. “Studies of populations after aggressive management of medicine overuse headache indicate that, for the majority of the headaches, for the most part did not clear after treatment, except maybe for a short time,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

A systematic review of 18 population studies showed the prevalence of medical overuse headache ranged from 11% to 68%. “That indicates substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He also noted potential harms to patients. Many patients come in experience between 10 and 20 headaches per month. “To see them out of medical overuse would have us advising not to treat half of their headaches monthly in order to avoid this evil. Many patients who have read or heard about this condition are themselves restricting treatment so as to avoid medication overuse headache. The harms of such undertreatment have not been fully investigated.”

To get at the issue, he recommended adapting the traditional number-needed-to-treat calculation. “You could calculate a number needed to overtreat. If medication use is assumed to be the sole cause of headache chronification, the calculations could suggest you would need to restrict therapy for about 4 people for each person you protect from going chronic. That’s a lot of undertreatment,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He summed up by saying that some patients may have a progressive disorder with structure and physiological changes in the brain that result in chronic pain, and such patients should be identified and studied. In others with frequent headache, high medication use may simply be associated with the condition becoming chronic, but not causative. “These diagnostic groups may be mixed and may be difficult to untangle,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Medication overuse is to blame

Dr. Rizzoli’s debate lecture was followed by Barbara Nye, MD, who argued that concerns over medication overuse headache are valid. She noted a more unifying definition in ICHD-3, which requires regular medication overuse for at least 3 months, along with primary headache disorder.

Dr. Nye, who is codirector of the Headache Clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., related her experience that medication overuse headache often occurs more quickly than the 3-month time frame contained in ICHD-3, especially in patients who were given pain medications after undergoing surgery. She echoed Dr. Rizzoli’s concerns about opiates and barbiturates. “Medicine overuse headache should be something we focus on, and we should be warning providers both in neurology and primary care about the frequent use of opiate and butalbital-containing medications, and frequent over-the-counter medicine use in high-frequency headache disorders,” Dr. Nye said during her talk.

She cited research showing risk factors for conversion from episodic to chronic daily headache. As well as medication overuse, these include White race, lower education status, previous marriage, obesity, diabetes, arthritis, top-quartile caffeine use, stressful life events, and higher headache frequency.

Risks vary by medication class. Opiates and narcotics used more than 2 or 3 times per week are of particular concern, as are short-acting over-the-counter medicines used more than three times per week or 10-15 days per month. She agreed that NSAIDs may have a protective effect, but only at much lower doses and when used about five (or fewer) times per month. One study showed a possible protection effect of NSAIDs, though when used more than 10 days/month, they were associated with medication overuse headache.

Fioricet and Fiorinal, used more than 1 day/week, have an early and robust medicine overuse effect. “Limiting that use is very important,” said Dr. Nye. Other medicines and doses of concern include Tramadol/Ultram used at a higher than 50 mg/day dose, which has a metabolite that causes headache, and triptans used more than 10 days/month.

These concerns came about after analysis of large trials in patients with other conditions who also suffer from episodic migraines. A study of patients with irritable bowel syndrome and migraine showed a risk of conversion with opioid treatment. Another study of patients with arthritis and episodic migraine showed an association between conversion and NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs combined with Tylenol, and NSAIDs combined with opioids.

Risks of medication overuse also included collateral damage to the gastrointestinal and kidney systems, development of dependence, exacerbation of depression, and opioid-induced hyperalgesia, according to Dr. Nye. The overused medication may also interfere with the use of preventive medication. Those concerns drive the conventional wisdom of weaning patients off the overused medication, Dr. Nye said.

Dr. Nye discussed some of the observations of structural changes in the brain found in episodic migraine and chronic migraine associated with medication overuse. Functional MRI showed changes in grey matter, both as a result of medication overuse headache and further changes after medication withdrawal. “A lot of neuroplasticity and neuroadaptation occurs, and these effects seem to be sustained anywhere from 4-6 months after (medicine) discontinuation,” said Dr. Nye.
 

Common ground

Dr. Nye emphasized the need to be aware of the dangers of medication overuse headache, but noted that clinicians should address the problem to ensure that patients are empowered, potentially providing preventive medications and encouraging more effective use of daily abortive medications.

In response, Dr. Rizzoli suggested that the two agreed on many issues. For her part, Dr. Nye agreed that medication overuse headache is a muddy concept that needs more research to understand the relationship between opiate use and chronic migraine, “but I do think there have been some good studies of fMRI evaluating the difference between those with medication overuse headache and seeing how they convert back to a different underlying network (following medication withdrawal). I do agree that there is probably a subpopulation that is not affected by medication overuse headache,” Dr. Nye said.

In the end, both expressed concerns for the patient. “I share Barbara’s concern that we need to be mindful and protect our patients from medication use, but on the other hand I think we also need to protect our patients from the complications of having a diagnosis of medical overuse and the stigmatization that goes with that. That particular issue goes both ways,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

“I absolutely agree with that,” responded Dr. Nye.

Dr. Nye is on the advisory boards for Biohaven, Upsher Smith, and Impel. She is a trial site principal investigator for Allergan, Amgen, and Satsuma. Dr. Rizzoli has been a consultant for Nestle and served on the scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Biohaven and Xoc Pharma. He has also received research support from Allergan.

Medication overuse headache presents difficult challenges for both patients and physicians. Physicians worry about episodic migraine converting to chronic daily headache, but this worry can also lead to under-treatment and even stigmatization of patients who aggressively treat their symptoms.

These concerns and others were a topic of a debate at the Headache Cooperative of New England’s 20th Annual HCNE Boston Fall Headache Symposium, which was conducted virtually.

The International Classification of Headache-3 (ICHD-3) defines medication overuse headache as a headache that occurs on 15 or more days per month in a patient with pre-existing primary headache, and that develops because of regular overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medication. The ICHD-3 also says that headache usually resolves when overuse is stopped, though not always.

Paul Rizzoli, MD, took issue with that definition. “If you have a lot of headaches and you take medication for them, then you likely have medication overuse headache. They say the most common cause of symptoms suggestive of chronic migraine is medication overuse. That’s like saying, if you have a rash on your arm, then it is an allergic sun exposure rash. No need to characterize the rash,” said Dr. Rizzoli, who is clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, during the session.
 

Is medication overuse really the culprit?

Dr. Rizzoli began by emphasizing that taking a lot of medication is always a concern. “Significant hepatic and renal and GI toxicities can result from taking and overusing medication of all sorts. What (I am) questioning is whether or not this rather strange, arbitrary, fluidly-defined concept of abortive migraine medicine overuse is truly responsible for causing all of the ills of which it is accused – and just as importantly, if the proposed solution for it, which is to just stop the overused medication and all will be better – if that solution is the right or wrong advice to give to a patient,” he said.

Much of Dr. Rizzoli’s criticism rested on the definition of medication overuse syndrome. He believes that many concerns about medication overuse can be traced to the use of opiates or barbiturate-containing medications, which have known propensities to lead to headaches. Other cases are less well defined, and “it’s not quite clear what the pathophysiology of the condition is – whether or not it’s the same as rebound or withdrawal headache, or if it is the same as a pronociceptive effect of analgesics, also called medicine-induced headache. Both are well documented and accepted, and the idea of opioid-induced analgesia tolerance is well documented and has several plausible mechanisms attributed to it,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He said that changes in structural imaging in the brain suggest there at least two subgroups of patients that are both labeled as having medication overuse headache, one from medication overuse and one from progression of migraine disease. “Based on physiology, medication overuse headache cannot be clearly seen as a unitary condition,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli cited other research on triptans, opioids, and barbiturates that showed an overall conversion from episodic migraine to chronic migraine, with the lowest frequency occurring in patients taking acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine (2%), followed by NSAIDs (4%), triptans (4%), opioids (5%), and barbiturates (6%). A total of 52 patients who became chronic were taking triptans, on average 7 days per month. The 1,370 triptan-using patients who remained episodic took triptans on average 5 days per month. “Does this seem like a huge difference between these two groups? The transformation rate in just this triptan subgroup was about 3%-4%, suggesting that, compared with the overall transformation rate of 3%, use of triptans did not exert much force overall on the baseline rate,” he said. Similar patterns were visible with use of other classes of drugs.

Meanwhile, the higher rates of conversion seen with opioids and barbiturates suggests an effect from these drugs. “Perhaps this data suggests the previously known effect is at play here and argues against the need for a separate diagnosis of medication overuse headache,” Dr. Rizzoli said.

“The evidence that simple analgesics can cause medication overuse headache is especially weak, and the evidence that NSAIDs do is conflicting, with some evidence suggesting they’re protective at some doses.” Other population studies suggested most patients with daily headache do not overuse medications, and studies in India, where analgesics are rarely used, still showed a similar rate of conversion to daily headache. Other studies failed to show evidence that withdrawal of overused medication leads to improvement. “Studies of populations after aggressive management of medicine overuse headache indicate that, for the majority of the headaches, for the most part did not clear after treatment, except maybe for a short time,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

A systematic review of 18 population studies showed the prevalence of medical overuse headache ranged from 11% to 68%. “That indicates substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He also noted potential harms to patients. Many patients come in experience between 10 and 20 headaches per month. “To see them out of medical overuse would have us advising not to treat half of their headaches monthly in order to avoid this evil. Many patients who have read or heard about this condition are themselves restricting treatment so as to avoid medication overuse headache. The harms of such undertreatment have not been fully investigated.”

To get at the issue, he recommended adapting the traditional number-needed-to-treat calculation. “You could calculate a number needed to overtreat. If medication use is assumed to be the sole cause of headache chronification, the calculations could suggest you would need to restrict therapy for about 4 people for each person you protect from going chronic. That’s a lot of undertreatment,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He summed up by saying that some patients may have a progressive disorder with structure and physiological changes in the brain that result in chronic pain, and such patients should be identified and studied. In others with frequent headache, high medication use may simply be associated with the condition becoming chronic, but not causative. “These diagnostic groups may be mixed and may be difficult to untangle,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Medication overuse is to blame

Dr. Rizzoli’s debate lecture was followed by Barbara Nye, MD, who argued that concerns over medication overuse headache are valid. She noted a more unifying definition in ICHD-3, which requires regular medication overuse for at least 3 months, along with primary headache disorder.

Dr. Nye, who is codirector of the Headache Clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., related her experience that medication overuse headache often occurs more quickly than the 3-month time frame contained in ICHD-3, especially in patients who were given pain medications after undergoing surgery. She echoed Dr. Rizzoli’s concerns about opiates and barbiturates. “Medicine overuse headache should be something we focus on, and we should be warning providers both in neurology and primary care about the frequent use of opiate and butalbital-containing medications, and frequent over-the-counter medicine use in high-frequency headache disorders,” Dr. Nye said during her talk.

She cited research showing risk factors for conversion from episodic to chronic daily headache. As well as medication overuse, these include White race, lower education status, previous marriage, obesity, diabetes, arthritis, top-quartile caffeine use, stressful life events, and higher headache frequency.

Risks vary by medication class. Opiates and narcotics used more than 2 or 3 times per week are of particular concern, as are short-acting over-the-counter medicines used more than three times per week or 10-15 days per month. She agreed that NSAIDs may have a protective effect, but only at much lower doses and when used about five (or fewer) times per month. One study showed a possible protection effect of NSAIDs, though when used more than 10 days/month, they were associated with medication overuse headache.

Fioricet and Fiorinal, used more than 1 day/week, have an early and robust medicine overuse effect. “Limiting that use is very important,” said Dr. Nye. Other medicines and doses of concern include Tramadol/Ultram used at a higher than 50 mg/day dose, which has a metabolite that causes headache, and triptans used more than 10 days/month.

These concerns came about after analysis of large trials in patients with other conditions who also suffer from episodic migraines. A study of patients with irritable bowel syndrome and migraine showed a risk of conversion with opioid treatment. Another study of patients with arthritis and episodic migraine showed an association between conversion and NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs combined with Tylenol, and NSAIDs combined with opioids.

Risks of medication overuse also included collateral damage to the gastrointestinal and kidney systems, development of dependence, exacerbation of depression, and opioid-induced hyperalgesia, according to Dr. Nye. The overused medication may also interfere with the use of preventive medication. Those concerns drive the conventional wisdom of weaning patients off the overused medication, Dr. Nye said.

Dr. Nye discussed some of the observations of structural changes in the brain found in episodic migraine and chronic migraine associated with medication overuse. Functional MRI showed changes in grey matter, both as a result of medication overuse headache and further changes after medication withdrawal. “A lot of neuroplasticity and neuroadaptation occurs, and these effects seem to be sustained anywhere from 4-6 months after (medicine) discontinuation,” said Dr. Nye.
 

Common ground

Dr. Nye emphasized the need to be aware of the dangers of medication overuse headache, but noted that clinicians should address the problem to ensure that patients are empowered, potentially providing preventive medications and encouraging more effective use of daily abortive medications.

In response, Dr. Rizzoli suggested that the two agreed on many issues. For her part, Dr. Nye agreed that medication overuse headache is a muddy concept that needs more research to understand the relationship between opiate use and chronic migraine, “but I do think there have been some good studies of fMRI evaluating the difference between those with medication overuse headache and seeing how they convert back to a different underlying network (following medication withdrawal). I do agree that there is probably a subpopulation that is not affected by medication overuse headache,” Dr. Nye said.

In the end, both expressed concerns for the patient. “I share Barbara’s concern that we need to be mindful and protect our patients from medication use, but on the other hand I think we also need to protect our patients from the complications of having a diagnosis of medical overuse and the stigmatization that goes with that. That particular issue goes both ways,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

“I absolutely agree with that,” responded Dr. Nye.

Dr. Nye is on the advisory boards for Biohaven, Upsher Smith, and Impel. She is a trial site principal investigator for Allergan, Amgen, and Satsuma. Dr. Rizzoli has been a consultant for Nestle and served on the scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Biohaven and Xoc Pharma. He has also received research support from Allergan.

Medication overuse headache presents difficult challenges for both patients and physicians. Physicians worry about episodic migraine converting to chronic daily headache, but this worry can also lead to under-treatment and even stigmatization of patients who aggressively treat their symptoms.

These concerns and others were a topic of a debate at the Headache Cooperative of New England’s 20th Annual HCNE Boston Fall Headache Symposium, which was conducted virtually.

The International Classification of Headache-3 (ICHD-3) defines medication overuse headache as a headache that occurs on 15 or more days per month in a patient with pre-existing primary headache, and that develops because of regular overuse of acute or symptomatic headache medication. The ICHD-3 also says that headache usually resolves when overuse is stopped, though not always.

Paul Rizzoli, MD, took issue with that definition. “If you have a lot of headaches and you take medication for them, then you likely have medication overuse headache. They say the most common cause of symptoms suggestive of chronic migraine is medication overuse. That’s like saying, if you have a rash on your arm, then it is an allergic sun exposure rash. No need to characterize the rash,” said Dr. Rizzoli, who is clinical director of the John R. Graham Headache Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, during the session.
 

Is medication overuse really the culprit?

Dr. Rizzoli began by emphasizing that taking a lot of medication is always a concern. “Significant hepatic and renal and GI toxicities can result from taking and overusing medication of all sorts. What (I am) questioning is whether or not this rather strange, arbitrary, fluidly-defined concept of abortive migraine medicine overuse is truly responsible for causing all of the ills of which it is accused – and just as importantly, if the proposed solution for it, which is to just stop the overused medication and all will be better – if that solution is the right or wrong advice to give to a patient,” he said.

Much of Dr. Rizzoli’s criticism rested on the definition of medication overuse syndrome. He believes that many concerns about medication overuse can be traced to the use of opiates or barbiturate-containing medications, which have known propensities to lead to headaches. Other cases are less well defined, and “it’s not quite clear what the pathophysiology of the condition is – whether or not it’s the same as rebound or withdrawal headache, or if it is the same as a pronociceptive effect of analgesics, also called medicine-induced headache. Both are well documented and accepted, and the idea of opioid-induced analgesia tolerance is well documented and has several plausible mechanisms attributed to it,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He said that changes in structural imaging in the brain suggest there at least two subgroups of patients that are both labeled as having medication overuse headache, one from medication overuse and one from progression of migraine disease. “Based on physiology, medication overuse headache cannot be clearly seen as a unitary condition,” he said.

Dr. Rizzoli cited other research on triptans, opioids, and barbiturates that showed an overall conversion from episodic migraine to chronic migraine, with the lowest frequency occurring in patients taking acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine (2%), followed by NSAIDs (4%), triptans (4%), opioids (5%), and barbiturates (6%). A total of 52 patients who became chronic were taking triptans, on average 7 days per month. The 1,370 triptan-using patients who remained episodic took triptans on average 5 days per month. “Does this seem like a huge difference between these two groups? The transformation rate in just this triptan subgroup was about 3%-4%, suggesting that, compared with the overall transformation rate of 3%, use of triptans did not exert much force overall on the baseline rate,” he said. Similar patterns were visible with use of other classes of drugs.

Meanwhile, the higher rates of conversion seen with opioids and barbiturates suggests an effect from these drugs. “Perhaps this data suggests the previously known effect is at play here and argues against the need for a separate diagnosis of medication overuse headache,” Dr. Rizzoli said.

“The evidence that simple analgesics can cause medication overuse headache is especially weak, and the evidence that NSAIDs do is conflicting, with some evidence suggesting they’re protective at some doses.” Other population studies suggested most patients with daily headache do not overuse medications, and studies in India, where analgesics are rarely used, still showed a similar rate of conversion to daily headache. Other studies failed to show evidence that withdrawal of overused medication leads to improvement. “Studies of populations after aggressive management of medicine overuse headache indicate that, for the majority of the headaches, for the most part did not clear after treatment, except maybe for a short time,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

A systematic review of 18 population studies showed the prevalence of medical overuse headache ranged from 11% to 68%. “That indicates substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He also noted potential harms to patients. Many patients come in experience between 10 and 20 headaches per month. “To see them out of medical overuse would have us advising not to treat half of their headaches monthly in order to avoid this evil. Many patients who have read or heard about this condition are themselves restricting treatment so as to avoid medication overuse headache. The harms of such undertreatment have not been fully investigated.”

To get at the issue, he recommended adapting the traditional number-needed-to-treat calculation. “You could calculate a number needed to overtreat. If medication use is assumed to be the sole cause of headache chronification, the calculations could suggest you would need to restrict therapy for about 4 people for each person you protect from going chronic. That’s a lot of undertreatment,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

He summed up by saying that some patients may have a progressive disorder with structure and physiological changes in the brain that result in chronic pain, and such patients should be identified and studied. In others with frequent headache, high medication use may simply be associated with the condition becoming chronic, but not causative. “These diagnostic groups may be mixed and may be difficult to untangle,” said Dr. Rizzoli.
 

Medication overuse is to blame

Dr. Rizzoli’s debate lecture was followed by Barbara Nye, MD, who argued that concerns over medication overuse headache are valid. She noted a more unifying definition in ICHD-3, which requires regular medication overuse for at least 3 months, along with primary headache disorder.

Dr. Nye, who is codirector of the Headache Clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., related her experience that medication overuse headache often occurs more quickly than the 3-month time frame contained in ICHD-3, especially in patients who were given pain medications after undergoing surgery. She echoed Dr. Rizzoli’s concerns about opiates and barbiturates. “Medicine overuse headache should be something we focus on, and we should be warning providers both in neurology and primary care about the frequent use of opiate and butalbital-containing medications, and frequent over-the-counter medicine use in high-frequency headache disorders,” Dr. Nye said during her talk.

She cited research showing risk factors for conversion from episodic to chronic daily headache. As well as medication overuse, these include White race, lower education status, previous marriage, obesity, diabetes, arthritis, top-quartile caffeine use, stressful life events, and higher headache frequency.

Risks vary by medication class. Opiates and narcotics used more than 2 or 3 times per week are of particular concern, as are short-acting over-the-counter medicines used more than three times per week or 10-15 days per month. She agreed that NSAIDs may have a protective effect, but only at much lower doses and when used about five (or fewer) times per month. One study showed a possible protection effect of NSAIDs, though when used more than 10 days/month, they were associated with medication overuse headache.

Fioricet and Fiorinal, used more than 1 day/week, have an early and robust medicine overuse effect. “Limiting that use is very important,” said Dr. Nye. Other medicines and doses of concern include Tramadol/Ultram used at a higher than 50 mg/day dose, which has a metabolite that causes headache, and triptans used more than 10 days/month.

These concerns came about after analysis of large trials in patients with other conditions who also suffer from episodic migraines. A study of patients with irritable bowel syndrome and migraine showed a risk of conversion with opioid treatment. Another study of patients with arthritis and episodic migraine showed an association between conversion and NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs combined with Tylenol, and NSAIDs combined with opioids.

Risks of medication overuse also included collateral damage to the gastrointestinal and kidney systems, development of dependence, exacerbation of depression, and opioid-induced hyperalgesia, according to Dr. Nye. The overused medication may also interfere with the use of preventive medication. Those concerns drive the conventional wisdom of weaning patients off the overused medication, Dr. Nye said.

Dr. Nye discussed some of the observations of structural changes in the brain found in episodic migraine and chronic migraine associated with medication overuse. Functional MRI showed changes in grey matter, both as a result of medication overuse headache and further changes after medication withdrawal. “A lot of neuroplasticity and neuroadaptation occurs, and these effects seem to be sustained anywhere from 4-6 months after (medicine) discontinuation,” said Dr. Nye.
 

Common ground

Dr. Nye emphasized the need to be aware of the dangers of medication overuse headache, but noted that clinicians should address the problem to ensure that patients are empowered, potentially providing preventive medications and encouraging more effective use of daily abortive medications.

In response, Dr. Rizzoli suggested that the two agreed on many issues. For her part, Dr. Nye agreed that medication overuse headache is a muddy concept that needs more research to understand the relationship between opiate use and chronic migraine, “but I do think there have been some good studies of fMRI evaluating the difference between those with medication overuse headache and seeing how they convert back to a different underlying network (following medication withdrawal). I do agree that there is probably a subpopulation that is not affected by medication overuse headache,” Dr. Nye said.

In the end, both expressed concerns for the patient. “I share Barbara’s concern that we need to be mindful and protect our patients from medication use, but on the other hand I think we also need to protect our patients from the complications of having a diagnosis of medical overuse and the stigmatization that goes with that. That particular issue goes both ways,” said Dr. Rizzoli.

“I absolutely agree with that,” responded Dr. Nye.

Dr. Nye is on the advisory boards for Biohaven, Upsher Smith, and Impel. She is a trial site principal investigator for Allergan, Amgen, and Satsuma. Dr. Rizzoli has been a consultant for Nestle and served on the scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Biohaven and Xoc Pharma. He has also received research support from Allergan.