Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT was 27% more accurate than conventional imaging for detecting metastases and staging men prior to curative-intent therapy for high-risk prostate cancer in the phase 3 ProPSMA study.

The accuracy was 92% for PSMA PET/CT and 65% for CT and bone scintigraphy (P < .001), according to data reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology and published in The Lancet.

In addition, PSMA PET/CT had greater effects on treatment. First-line imaging led to treatment changes in 28% of the PSMA PET/CT group and 15% of the CT/bone scan group. Second-line imaging led to treatment changes in 27% and 5% of patients, respectively.

“My strong view is that this is practice-changing data,” said study investigator Michael Hofman, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Highly relevant secondary outcomes were included in the study, Dr. Hofman said, and results were all in favor of PSMA PET/CT over conventional imaging.

PSMA PET/CT was associated with a lower rate of equivocal or uncertain findings (7% vs. 23%), and half the radiation dose was needed with PSMA PET/CT (8 mSv vs. 19 mSv). Furthermore, PSMA PET/CT was more accurate when used after CT/bone scan than when CT/bone scan was used after PSMA PET/CT (19% vs. 2%).

“PSMA PET/CT has emerged as a potential new gold standard for imaging prostate cancer,” Dr. Hofman said. The images it can produce were “striking” compared to conventional CT, he added. Pelvic and abdominal metastases that are barely visible on CT were “lighting up very brightly” on PSMA PET/CT, he said.

The study also showed that PSMA PET/CT was superior to CT/bone scans for picking up metastases throughout the body. The detection rate was 91% and 59%, respectively, for pelvic nodal metastases and 95% and 74%, respectively, for distant metastases.
 

Study details

ProPSMA is a multicenter, phase 3 trial directly comparing PSMA PET/CT and the standard of imaging. Of 339 men assessed for inclusion across 10 centers in Australia, 302 were randomized. They had a median age of 69 years. All patients had high-risk prostate cancer, which was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group 3-5, or clinical stage T3 or higher. They were all about to undergo either surgery or radiotherapy with the intention of curing their prostate cancer.

PSMA PET/CT was performed using the gallium-68-labelled PSMA-11 tracer, but the results would likely be no different if another tracer were used, Dr. Hofman said in the discussion following his talk.

Of the three available tracers, there were minor differences, mostly in how they were excreted. However, “they’re all extremely good. I’m not sure anyone’s ever going to undertake a head-to-head study comparing them,” Dr. Hofman said.

“Whichever one you can access, at the cheapest cost, I think, is going to be the best one in your center,” he added. “That really does vary geographically, but I really don’t think one is better or worse than the other.”
 

Praise and criticism

The latest European guidelines acknowledge that PSMA PET/CT is more sensitive for detecting lymph node and bone metastases than the classical workup of abdominopelvic CT and bone scintigraphy, according to invited discussant Matthias Heck, PD Dr. med, of the Technical University of Munich in Germany.

“Molecular imaging using PSMA PET/CT facilitates the detection of small lymph node metastasis, with the size of a few millimeters,” Dr. Heck said.

Although he commended the ProPSMA investigators, Dr. Heck had one criticism of the study design that may have resulted in over-sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT.

“As a urologist, I want to address as a discussion point the low number of histopathologic validation in the ProPSMA study,” he said. “Pelvic lymph node sampling was performed only in 66% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Hard criteria to define the presence of metastasis were only used in 23% of patients with metastases. Therefore, it is possible that the sensitivity was overestimated by using mainly soft criteria.”

The sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT was 85%, while that of CT/bone scan was 38%. The respective specificities were 98% and 91%.

“What I like most about this study is that, when we perform a PSMA PET/CT, you see the whole body; you don’t see only pelvic lymph nodes,” Dr. Heck said. Since it was not possible to validate distant metastasis by histopathology, he added, this imaging method could clearly help determine the best treatment.

“If we have distant metastasis in the bones or in the lymph nodes outside of the pelvis, it’s clearly unnecessary to direct this patient to undergo local treatment, and we need to think about other treatments,” Dr. Heck said. “Therefore, I think it’s a very important question that is being raised by this study, and we all need to look at the whole body of the patient and not focus only on the pelvic lymph nodes.”

The study was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. Dr. Hofman said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Heck disclosed relationships with Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Amgen, Bayer, Heise, Merck, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCES: Hofman M et al. Lancet. March 22, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT was 27% more accurate than conventional imaging for detecting metastases and staging men prior to curative-intent therapy for high-risk prostate cancer in the phase 3 ProPSMA study.

The accuracy was 92% for PSMA PET/CT and 65% for CT and bone scintigraphy (P < .001), according to data reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology and published in The Lancet.

In addition, PSMA PET/CT had greater effects on treatment. First-line imaging led to treatment changes in 28% of the PSMA PET/CT group and 15% of the CT/bone scan group. Second-line imaging led to treatment changes in 27% and 5% of patients, respectively.

“My strong view is that this is practice-changing data,” said study investigator Michael Hofman, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Highly relevant secondary outcomes were included in the study, Dr. Hofman said, and results were all in favor of PSMA PET/CT over conventional imaging.

PSMA PET/CT was associated with a lower rate of equivocal or uncertain findings (7% vs. 23%), and half the radiation dose was needed with PSMA PET/CT (8 mSv vs. 19 mSv). Furthermore, PSMA PET/CT was more accurate when used after CT/bone scan than when CT/bone scan was used after PSMA PET/CT (19% vs. 2%).

“PSMA PET/CT has emerged as a potential new gold standard for imaging prostate cancer,” Dr. Hofman said. The images it can produce were “striking” compared to conventional CT, he added. Pelvic and abdominal metastases that are barely visible on CT were “lighting up very brightly” on PSMA PET/CT, he said.

The study also showed that PSMA PET/CT was superior to CT/bone scans for picking up metastases throughout the body. The detection rate was 91% and 59%, respectively, for pelvic nodal metastases and 95% and 74%, respectively, for distant metastases.
 

Study details

ProPSMA is a multicenter, phase 3 trial directly comparing PSMA PET/CT and the standard of imaging. Of 339 men assessed for inclusion across 10 centers in Australia, 302 were randomized. They had a median age of 69 years. All patients had high-risk prostate cancer, which was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group 3-5, or clinical stage T3 or higher. They were all about to undergo either surgery or radiotherapy with the intention of curing their prostate cancer.

PSMA PET/CT was performed using the gallium-68-labelled PSMA-11 tracer, but the results would likely be no different if another tracer were used, Dr. Hofman said in the discussion following his talk.

Of the three available tracers, there were minor differences, mostly in how they were excreted. However, “they’re all extremely good. I’m not sure anyone’s ever going to undertake a head-to-head study comparing them,” Dr. Hofman said.

“Whichever one you can access, at the cheapest cost, I think, is going to be the best one in your center,” he added. “That really does vary geographically, but I really don’t think one is better or worse than the other.”
 

Praise and criticism

The latest European guidelines acknowledge that PSMA PET/CT is more sensitive for detecting lymph node and bone metastases than the classical workup of abdominopelvic CT and bone scintigraphy, according to invited discussant Matthias Heck, PD Dr. med, of the Technical University of Munich in Germany.

“Molecular imaging using PSMA PET/CT facilitates the detection of small lymph node metastasis, with the size of a few millimeters,” Dr. Heck said.

Although he commended the ProPSMA investigators, Dr. Heck had one criticism of the study design that may have resulted in over-sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT.

“As a urologist, I want to address as a discussion point the low number of histopathologic validation in the ProPSMA study,” he said. “Pelvic lymph node sampling was performed only in 66% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Hard criteria to define the presence of metastasis were only used in 23% of patients with metastases. Therefore, it is possible that the sensitivity was overestimated by using mainly soft criteria.”

The sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT was 85%, while that of CT/bone scan was 38%. The respective specificities were 98% and 91%.

“What I like most about this study is that, when we perform a PSMA PET/CT, you see the whole body; you don’t see only pelvic lymph nodes,” Dr. Heck said. Since it was not possible to validate distant metastasis by histopathology, he added, this imaging method could clearly help determine the best treatment.

“If we have distant metastasis in the bones or in the lymph nodes outside of the pelvis, it’s clearly unnecessary to direct this patient to undergo local treatment, and we need to think about other treatments,” Dr. Heck said. “Therefore, I think it’s a very important question that is being raised by this study, and we all need to look at the whole body of the patient and not focus only on the pelvic lymph nodes.”

The study was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. Dr. Hofman said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Heck disclosed relationships with Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Amgen, Bayer, Heise, Merck, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCES: Hofman M et al. Lancet. March 22, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT was 27% more accurate than conventional imaging for detecting metastases and staging men prior to curative-intent therapy for high-risk prostate cancer in the phase 3 ProPSMA study.

The accuracy was 92% for PSMA PET/CT and 65% for CT and bone scintigraphy (P < .001), according to data reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology and published in The Lancet.

In addition, PSMA PET/CT had greater effects on treatment. First-line imaging led to treatment changes in 28% of the PSMA PET/CT group and 15% of the CT/bone scan group. Second-line imaging led to treatment changes in 27% and 5% of patients, respectively.

“My strong view is that this is practice-changing data,” said study investigator Michael Hofman, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne.

Highly relevant secondary outcomes were included in the study, Dr. Hofman said, and results were all in favor of PSMA PET/CT over conventional imaging.

PSMA PET/CT was associated with a lower rate of equivocal or uncertain findings (7% vs. 23%), and half the radiation dose was needed with PSMA PET/CT (8 mSv vs. 19 mSv). Furthermore, PSMA PET/CT was more accurate when used after CT/bone scan than when CT/bone scan was used after PSMA PET/CT (19% vs. 2%).

“PSMA PET/CT has emerged as a potential new gold standard for imaging prostate cancer,” Dr. Hofman said. The images it can produce were “striking” compared to conventional CT, he added. Pelvic and abdominal metastases that are barely visible on CT were “lighting up very brightly” on PSMA PET/CT, he said.

The study also showed that PSMA PET/CT was superior to CT/bone scans for picking up metastases throughout the body. The detection rate was 91% and 59%, respectively, for pelvic nodal metastases and 95% and 74%, respectively, for distant metastases.
 

Study details

ProPSMA is a multicenter, phase 3 trial directly comparing PSMA PET/CT and the standard of imaging. Of 339 men assessed for inclusion across 10 centers in Australia, 302 were randomized. They had a median age of 69 years. All patients had high-risk prostate cancer, which was defined as a prostate-specific antigen level of 20 ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group 3-5, or clinical stage T3 or higher. They were all about to undergo either surgery or radiotherapy with the intention of curing their prostate cancer.

PSMA PET/CT was performed using the gallium-68-labelled PSMA-11 tracer, but the results would likely be no different if another tracer were used, Dr. Hofman said in the discussion following his talk.

Of the three available tracers, there were minor differences, mostly in how they were excreted. However, “they’re all extremely good. I’m not sure anyone’s ever going to undertake a head-to-head study comparing them,” Dr. Hofman said.

“Whichever one you can access, at the cheapest cost, I think, is going to be the best one in your center,” he added. “That really does vary geographically, but I really don’t think one is better or worse than the other.”
 

Praise and criticism

The latest European guidelines acknowledge that PSMA PET/CT is more sensitive for detecting lymph node and bone metastases than the classical workup of abdominopelvic CT and bone scintigraphy, according to invited discussant Matthias Heck, PD Dr. med, of the Technical University of Munich in Germany.

“Molecular imaging using PSMA PET/CT facilitates the detection of small lymph node metastasis, with the size of a few millimeters,” Dr. Heck said.

Although he commended the ProPSMA investigators, Dr. Heck had one criticism of the study design that may have resulted in over-sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT.

“As a urologist, I want to address as a discussion point the low number of histopathologic validation in the ProPSMA study,” he said. “Pelvic lymph node sampling was performed only in 66% of patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Hard criteria to define the presence of metastasis were only used in 23% of patients with metastases. Therefore, it is possible that the sensitivity was overestimated by using mainly soft criteria.”

The sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT was 85%, while that of CT/bone scan was 38%. The respective specificities were 98% and 91%.

“What I like most about this study is that, when we perform a PSMA PET/CT, you see the whole body; you don’t see only pelvic lymph nodes,” Dr. Heck said. Since it was not possible to validate distant metastasis by histopathology, he added, this imaging method could clearly help determine the best treatment.

“If we have distant metastasis in the bones or in the lymph nodes outside of the pelvis, it’s clearly unnecessary to direct this patient to undergo local treatment, and we need to think about other treatments,” Dr. Heck said. “Therefore, I think it’s a very important question that is being raised by this study, and we all need to look at the whole body of the patient and not focus only on the pelvic lymph nodes.”

The study was funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. Dr. Hofman said he has no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Heck disclosed relationships with Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Amgen, Bayer, Heise, Merck, Sanofi, and Takeda.

SOURCES: Hofman M et al. Lancet. March 22, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given an opportunity to see physicians’ notes about their visits, patients mostly understand and agree with them, a survey shows.

Overall, 93% of respondents said the notes accurately described the visit; only 6% reported that something important was missing, write Suzanne G. Leveille, RN, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and colleagues in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

“I think it’s wonderful news,” commented Howard Levy, MD, PhD, who spearheaded the implementation of open notes at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “I’m thrilled with this report.”

Currently, 50 million Americans have access to their notes, the researchers report. Starting Nov. 2, 2020, the 21st Century Cures Act will require all US physicians to provide this access.

The regulation follows a movement to involve patients more actively in their care. Previous research has shown that access to visit notes improves patients’ feelings of control, helps them adhere to their medication regimens, and enables them to better understand their care plans.

Although physicians often feel that giving patients access to notes will lead to unnecessary conversations that will waste their time, previous studies have not borne that out. “Most clinical providers don’t notice a thing,” Levy told Medscape Medical News. “There was no change in the volume of work.”

Leveille and colleagues wanted to know how patients viewed the clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the notes they were reading and whether they had suggestions for improvements.

They surveyed all 136,815 adult outpatients affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; the University of Washington Medicine, in Seattle; and the Geisinger Health System, based in Danville, Pennsylvania. These systems all offer patients access to physicians’ notes.

The researchers asked the patients to recall one note written by a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or mental health professional.

They received responses from 21,664 patients who had read at least one note. Of these, two thirds were women, three quarters were aged 45 years or older, and 85% were White.

Seventy-two percent had completed college. Although 85% reported being in good or excellent health, more of the respondents than nonrespondents had chronic health problems.

Ninety-seven percent of those with college educations understood their notes, compared with 92% of those who had not completed college, a finding that conflicted with the researchers’ expectations. “Good gracious, that’s wonderful,” Levy said. “In medicine we almost never get a 92% success rate in anything we do.”

Of the patients in fair or poor health, 88.6% said the note was accurate, compared with 94.4% of those in better health. Those in worse health were also more likely to say something important was missing.

When patients didn’t understand something, 35% searched the Internet, 27% asked a clinician, 7% asked a friend or family member, and 27% didn’t get help. (The researchers did not account for the other 4%.)

Of those patients whose note was written by a physician, 95% reported that the note accurately described the visit, compared with 92% of those whose note was written by a nurse practitioner and 90% of those whose note was written by a physician assistant.

Of patients reporting on a primary care note, 97% understood the note, compared with 94% of those reporting on a note from a visit to a specialist.

Ninety-three percent of those who understood their note were likely to recommend their clinician, compared with 77% of those who didn’t completely understand their note.

Asked how the notes could be improved, 3,812 people responded with comments of at least five words. These responses were included in the analysis.

Most commonly, patients wanted new information to be prominently featured at the top of the note, with clear instructions about next steps, referrals, and explanations of test results.

Often, they complained of old information or templates that felt impersonal. They stumbled over medical jargon and suggested links to glossaries. They bristled at such terms as “obese” and “patient denies.” Some wanted a way to comment on the notes.

Regarding the portals in which the notes were found, some patients said the notes were sometimes hard to find. Some said the notes were not posted quickly enough after the visits.

Levy said physicians should learn to write notes more succinctly, and he expects new regulations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage that. Previous regulations may have given physicians the impression that longer notes would allow them to bill at higher rates, he said. “The change in billing requirements will make it easier for healthcare providers to feel comfortable that they don’t have to restate information that had already been stated,” he said.

On the other hand, physicians should continue to use medical terminology, he said. “At times we use jargon, because it conveys rich, dense information in a few words,” he said. “That’s something that we should not have to give up.” Patients can research terms they don’t understand, he said.

Family physician Doug Iliff, MD, thinks it’s about time that his colleagues share their notes. He’s been doing it since he opened his solo practice in Topeka, Kansas, in 1984.

He still does it the way he always did, with carbonless copy paper. After each visit, he simply tears off the copy and hands it to the patient.

“It makes them know we’re on the same page,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It gives them confidence that I’m telling them what I really think.”

He has one comment on the work of Leveille and her colleagues. “Why are they studying this? Isn’t it obvious that it’s a good thing?”

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Peterson Center on Healthcare, and the Cambia Health Foundation. The study authors, Iliff, and Levy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chester Good, MD, MPH, is professor of medicine and pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and School of Pharmacy. He is also the senior medical director, UPMC Health Plan Insurance Division, as well as the director for the Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives.
 

What are the potential benefits of value-based contracting for patients with multiple sclerosis, as well as for health systems and payers?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: I think for all 3, value-based contracting really is about moving from volume to value. And in doing so, what we're trying to do is recognize the value of pharmaceuticals perhaps in ways that we previously have not.

Patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be able to live their lives where they can continue to work, maintain their activities of daily living, and maintain their quality of life. Value-based contracting ideally recognizes those patient values and leverages contracting of pharmaceuticals that have been shown to help maintain those qualities in patients. For health systems, our greatest duty is to our patients in terms of maintaining their quality of life, maintaining their health, and preventing disease progression. By developing value-based contracts in which we recognize these measurable outcomes, we're showing a commitment to our patients and trying to hopefully establish the value of our pharmacy benefit.

For most health plans and payers, MS especially has become an increasingly expensive disease, with MS-related medications representing a significant cost burden. It's no secret that MS drugs have gone up significantly in recent years.

In a paper published in JAMA Neurology,¹ we looked at the costs of these self-administered disease-modifying therapies for MS. From 2006 to 2016, the costs more than quadrupled, from a mean of $18,660 a year to more than $75,000, which means they increased at an annual rate of almost 13%. For payers, pharmaceutical spending per 1000 beneficiaries increased tenfold; and out-of-pocket expenses to our patients also increased significantly.

So, that's the reality. But the other reality is that there have been significant advancements in the treatment of MS using pharmaceuticals. And some of these newer treatments are more effective. Moreover, some are easier to take than some of the older therapies, and some are better tolerated from a patient perspective.

As a result of dramatic increase in costs of MS drugs, payers are asking about what they are getting in return for all these dramatic increases in costs. One of the ways to demonstrate that value is to link paying for these drugs with a value-based contract.

Why is a disease such as MS a good fit for value-based contracting?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: MS is a fairly prevalent disease. Fortunately, pharmacotherapy has gotten better over the years, to the point where it's clear that the pharmacotherapy of MS has really changed the course of the disease for our patients, allowing them to maintain their quality of life and functional abilities.

On a personal level, I had a family member growing up who had MS. And she did not have the benefits of the newer drugs. And through my childhood and early adulthood, I watched as she went from a very productive working person to someone who could no longer work, was unable to take care of her children, and was institutionalized and eventually died from complications of MS. That would be unusual today.

In a value-based contract, what MS outcomes are linked to reimbursement, and how are they measured?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Traditionally, outcomes-based agreements focused on things that would be easily measured through administrative data. These are things that either a drug manufacturer or insurer, or both, have identified as being what they think are important outcomes for that disease state, but also things that they think they would be able to measure. Oftentimes, these were intermediate outcomes. Did the patient remain on a drug? Were they adherent? What was the impact on hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes? Although these outcomes may be important, they  may not be as important to our patients.

So for MS, I would argue that it's really important to try to expand on this idea of which MS-specific outcomes are meaningful to our patients, and then try to link them to reimbursement. One of the things that we do at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) is survey our stakeholders, and we ask what outcomes are important, using the Delphi method. Our most important stakeholder, of course, is our patient. But we also survey the physicians who care for these patients, other clinicians who care for these patients, our pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, our industry partners, and sometimes other stakeholders such as employers.

Sometimes, the things that are important to the patients are easily measured. It may be that patients with heart disease don't want to have another heart attack, and typically with a heart attack you end up going into the hospital. In the case of other disease states, however, it may be that what's most important to our patients differs from what we think is most important. We don't make any assumptions. We measure what our patients tell us.

In the case of MS, before we entered into a value-based contract, we did a Delphi survey including patients, physicians, industry partners, payers, and our pharmacy benefits manager.² We did several rounds of surveys, and in the second round we had our stakeholders rank outcomes. What we found was that the most important outcome was “worsening physical disability.” One hundred percent of our stakeholders—not just our patients, but everyone—ranked worsening physical disability as important.

I would've thought that patients would've said, “Well, I don't want an MS flare.” And we could argue that MS flares may result in worsening physical disability, but not always. When we asked what would be the easiest thing to measure, of course MS flares are the easiest thing, because they require an emergency department visit or use of corticosteroids or hospitalization.

Based on our survey, we picked disability progression as our outcome of interest and the basis for our value-based contract. We entered into a contract with Biogen for a couple of their drugs, dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex), 2 very important MS drugs. This is a classic patient-reported outcome, and of course that poses a lot of interesting challenges about how you actually measure it. So, we had to work with our subject matter experts in the clinics to identify and externally validate a patient-reported outcome that measured disability progression. We worked very hard so that we’re able to collect that in a way that doesn’t inconvenience our physicians or our patients.

There are other tools that can be used, one of which is the PROMIS tool developed through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That's a way to quantify changes in patient-reported outcomes. The interesting thing is NIH specifically developed this tool with certain disease states in mind, one of which was MS. So, some of the PROMIS domains include pain, fatigue, physical functioning, emotional distress, cognitive functioning, and social functioning. And all these things could be very important to our MS patients.

We actually do use PROMIS measures and PROMIS questionnaires routinely with our patients who come to our neurology clinic. It's not part of our value-based contracts at this point, but it's something that is a potentially interesting way to measure patient-reported outcomes.

What are the key challenges to implementing a value-based contract?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Value-based contracting has been far more laborious than I ever imagined. These are legal documents that are very long and complex, and quite daunting. We've tried our best to incorporate figures and diagrams to simplify issues and ensure that we all are understanding things similarly. But at the end of the day, despite our best efforts, these contracts remain very complex, and questions and unexpected situations develop as we implement them. So, that's been one of the challenges.

The pandemic has also posed some challenges. It has affected everything. That includes fewer patient clinic encounters, which is a challenge when some of our value-based contracts require vital signs, lab work, or other things dependent on patient visits. There are also fewer patients presenting with disease states. It’s been well documented that hospitalizations and patient visits to the emergency departments for various conditions have really plummeted in the face of the coronavirus. So, the pandemic is a clear confounder as we try to identify the value of these pharmaceuticals and how they've impacted care. That's been a huge challenge for us.

Another thing to mention is that we’ve tried to be very innovative in our value-based outcomes. But it's been very challenging to do the analyses. What seems to be clear in a contract may not be clear once you start to analyze things, as there are all sorts of scenarios that one cannot anticipate. That has required going back and forth with our industry partners. Fortunately, we have good working relationships with them, and we've been able to work out those wrinkles; but that's been a challenge.

I mentioned the importance of patient-reported outcomes, but they are a challenge to measure. How do you collect patient-reported outcomes in a way that does not pose a burden on our patients or clinicians?

Finally, a significant challenge for health care organizations and insurers that hope to do value-based contracting is that drug companies do not typically  place a lot of risk on the table. While we've been very pleased with our value-based contracts thus far, in the future we hope to see greater risk in these contracts, especially for areas such as gene therapy.

What are the next steps in value-based contracting for MS?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Multiple sclerosis can be a progressive disease, and it's over a lifetime. It can affect people's quality of life. It can affect their ability to work. It can affect the quality of their work and what sort of things that they can do.

Because MS can affect every aspect of life, it's not enough to simply measure things like disease flares or MRI lesions. Rather, we need to figure out ways to understand how these drugs impact our patients’ day-to-day lives, the quality of their lives, and their ability to function as normally as possible. I think these other patient-reported outcomes would represent important next steps in MS outcomes measurement. Our current value-based contract has 1 simple, albeit very important, outcome that we're looking at, but are there other ways to measure patients’ quality of life? Perhaps this will involve using PROMIS measures or  other innovative ways to measure patient outcomes. We’ve discussed with some patient interest groups how to incorporate other measures that are very important to our patients.

From a payer perspective, it may not show up in terms of impacting total cost of care. Depending on the disease states, oftentimes if things progress slowly over years, it is difficult to demonstrate an impact. But it's not all only about decreasing our costs because we decrease hospitalizations; it’s also about improving the quality of our patients’ lives.

The next step for us at UPMC is to continue to gather our data and to analyze our outcomes. And based on that, we're hoping to expand our portfolio of drugs for the MS disease state and expand outcomes that we're measuring.

Chester Good, MD, MPH, is professor of medicine and pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and School of Pharmacy. He is also the senior medical director, UPMC Health Plan Insurance Division, as well as the director for the Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives.
 

What are the potential benefits of value-based contracting for patients with multiple sclerosis, as well as for health systems and payers?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: I think for all 3, value-based contracting really is about moving from volume to value. And in doing so, what we're trying to do is recognize the value of pharmaceuticals perhaps in ways that we previously have not.

Patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be able to live their lives where they can continue to work, maintain their activities of daily living, and maintain their quality of life. Value-based contracting ideally recognizes those patient values and leverages contracting of pharmaceuticals that have been shown to help maintain those qualities in patients. For health systems, our greatest duty is to our patients in terms of maintaining their quality of life, maintaining their health, and preventing disease progression. By developing value-based contracts in which we recognize these measurable outcomes, we're showing a commitment to our patients and trying to hopefully establish the value of our pharmacy benefit.

For most health plans and payers, MS especially has become an increasingly expensive disease, with MS-related medications representing a significant cost burden. It's no secret that MS drugs have gone up significantly in recent years.

In a paper published in JAMA Neurology,¹ we looked at the costs of these self-administered disease-modifying therapies for MS. From 2006 to 2016, the costs more than quadrupled, from a mean of $18,660 a year to more than $75,000, which means they increased at an annual rate of almost 13%. For payers, pharmaceutical spending per 1000 beneficiaries increased tenfold; and out-of-pocket expenses to our patients also increased significantly.

So, that's the reality. But the other reality is that there have been significant advancements in the treatment of MS using pharmaceuticals. And some of these newer treatments are more effective. Moreover, some are easier to take than some of the older therapies, and some are better tolerated from a patient perspective.

As a result of dramatic increase in costs of MS drugs, payers are asking about what they are getting in return for all these dramatic increases in costs. One of the ways to demonstrate that value is to link paying for these drugs with a value-based contract.

Why is a disease such as MS a good fit for value-based contracting?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: MS is a fairly prevalent disease. Fortunately, pharmacotherapy has gotten better over the years, to the point where it's clear that the pharmacotherapy of MS has really changed the course of the disease for our patients, allowing them to maintain their quality of life and functional abilities.

On a personal level, I had a family member growing up who had MS. And she did not have the benefits of the newer drugs. And through my childhood and early adulthood, I watched as she went from a very productive working person to someone who could no longer work, was unable to take care of her children, and was institutionalized and eventually died from complications of MS. That would be unusual today.

In a value-based contract, what MS outcomes are linked to reimbursement, and how are they measured?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Traditionally, outcomes-based agreements focused on things that would be easily measured through administrative data. These are things that either a drug manufacturer or insurer, or both, have identified as being what they think are important outcomes for that disease state, but also things that they think they would be able to measure. Oftentimes, these were intermediate outcomes. Did the patient remain on a drug? Were they adherent? What was the impact on hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes? Although these outcomes may be important, they  may not be as important to our patients.

So for MS, I would argue that it's really important to try to expand on this idea of which MS-specific outcomes are meaningful to our patients, and then try to link them to reimbursement. One of the things that we do at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) is survey our stakeholders, and we ask what outcomes are important, using the Delphi method. Our most important stakeholder, of course, is our patient. But we also survey the physicians who care for these patients, other clinicians who care for these patients, our pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, our industry partners, and sometimes other stakeholders such as employers.

Sometimes, the things that are important to the patients are easily measured. It may be that patients with heart disease don't want to have another heart attack, and typically with a heart attack you end up going into the hospital. In the case of other disease states, however, it may be that what's most important to our patients differs from what we think is most important. We don't make any assumptions. We measure what our patients tell us.

In the case of MS, before we entered into a value-based contract, we did a Delphi survey including patients, physicians, industry partners, payers, and our pharmacy benefits manager.² We did several rounds of surveys, and in the second round we had our stakeholders rank outcomes. What we found was that the most important outcome was “worsening physical disability.” One hundred percent of our stakeholders—not just our patients, but everyone—ranked worsening physical disability as important.

I would've thought that patients would've said, “Well, I don't want an MS flare.” And we could argue that MS flares may result in worsening physical disability, but not always. When we asked what would be the easiest thing to measure, of course MS flares are the easiest thing, because they require an emergency department visit or use of corticosteroids or hospitalization.

Based on our survey, we picked disability progression as our outcome of interest and the basis for our value-based contract. We entered into a contract with Biogen for a couple of their drugs, dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex), 2 very important MS drugs. This is a classic patient-reported outcome, and of course that poses a lot of interesting challenges about how you actually measure it. So, we had to work with our subject matter experts in the clinics to identify and externally validate a patient-reported outcome that measured disability progression. We worked very hard so that we’re able to collect that in a way that doesn’t inconvenience our physicians or our patients.

There are other tools that can be used, one of which is the PROMIS tool developed through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That's a way to quantify changes in patient-reported outcomes. The interesting thing is NIH specifically developed this tool with certain disease states in mind, one of which was MS. So, some of the PROMIS domains include pain, fatigue, physical functioning, emotional distress, cognitive functioning, and social functioning. And all these things could be very important to our MS patients.

We actually do use PROMIS measures and PROMIS questionnaires routinely with our patients who come to our neurology clinic. It's not part of our value-based contracts at this point, but it's something that is a potentially interesting way to measure patient-reported outcomes.

What are the key challenges to implementing a value-based contract?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Value-based contracting has been far more laborious than I ever imagined. These are legal documents that are very long and complex, and quite daunting. We've tried our best to incorporate figures and diagrams to simplify issues and ensure that we all are understanding things similarly. But at the end of the day, despite our best efforts, these contracts remain very complex, and questions and unexpected situations develop as we implement them. So, that's been one of the challenges.

The pandemic has also posed some challenges. It has affected everything. That includes fewer patient clinic encounters, which is a challenge when some of our value-based contracts require vital signs, lab work, or other things dependent on patient visits. There are also fewer patients presenting with disease states. It’s been well documented that hospitalizations and patient visits to the emergency departments for various conditions have really plummeted in the face of the coronavirus. So, the pandemic is a clear confounder as we try to identify the value of these pharmaceuticals and how they've impacted care. That's been a huge challenge for us.

Another thing to mention is that we’ve tried to be very innovative in our value-based outcomes. But it's been very challenging to do the analyses. What seems to be clear in a contract may not be clear once you start to analyze things, as there are all sorts of scenarios that one cannot anticipate. That has required going back and forth with our industry partners. Fortunately, we have good working relationships with them, and we've been able to work out those wrinkles; but that's been a challenge.

I mentioned the importance of patient-reported outcomes, but they are a challenge to measure. How do you collect patient-reported outcomes in a way that does not pose a burden on our patients or clinicians?

Finally, a significant challenge for health care organizations and insurers that hope to do value-based contracting is that drug companies do not typically  place a lot of risk on the table. While we've been very pleased with our value-based contracts thus far, in the future we hope to see greater risk in these contracts, especially for areas such as gene therapy.

What are the next steps in value-based contracting for MS?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Multiple sclerosis can be a progressive disease, and it's over a lifetime. It can affect people's quality of life. It can affect their ability to work. It can affect the quality of their work and what sort of things that they can do.

Because MS can affect every aspect of life, it's not enough to simply measure things like disease flares or MRI lesions. Rather, we need to figure out ways to understand how these drugs impact our patients’ day-to-day lives, the quality of their lives, and their ability to function as normally as possible. I think these other patient-reported outcomes would represent important next steps in MS outcomes measurement. Our current value-based contract has 1 simple, albeit very important, outcome that we're looking at, but are there other ways to measure patients’ quality of life? Perhaps this will involve using PROMIS measures or  other innovative ways to measure patient outcomes. We’ve discussed with some patient interest groups how to incorporate other measures that are very important to our patients.

From a payer perspective, it may not show up in terms of impacting total cost of care. Depending on the disease states, oftentimes if things progress slowly over years, it is difficult to demonstrate an impact. But it's not all only about decreasing our costs because we decrease hospitalizations; it’s also about improving the quality of our patients’ lives.

The next step for us at UPMC is to continue to gather our data and to analyze our outcomes. And based on that, we're hoping to expand our portfolio of drugs for the MS disease state and expand outcomes that we're measuring.

Chester Good, MD, MPH, is professor of medicine and pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and School of Pharmacy. He is also the senior medical director, UPMC Health Plan Insurance Division, as well as the director for the Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives.
 

What are the potential benefits of value-based contracting for patients with multiple sclerosis, as well as for health systems and payers?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: I think for all 3, value-based contracting really is about moving from volume to value. And in doing so, what we're trying to do is recognize the value of pharmaceuticals perhaps in ways that we previously have not.

Patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be able to live their lives where they can continue to work, maintain their activities of daily living, and maintain their quality of life. Value-based contracting ideally recognizes those patient values and leverages contracting of pharmaceuticals that have been shown to help maintain those qualities in patients. For health systems, our greatest duty is to our patients in terms of maintaining their quality of life, maintaining their health, and preventing disease progression. By developing value-based contracts in which we recognize these measurable outcomes, we're showing a commitment to our patients and trying to hopefully establish the value of our pharmacy benefit.

For most health plans and payers, MS especially has become an increasingly expensive disease, with MS-related medications representing a significant cost burden. It's no secret that MS drugs have gone up significantly in recent years.

In a paper published in JAMA Neurology,¹ we looked at the costs of these self-administered disease-modifying therapies for MS. From 2006 to 2016, the costs more than quadrupled, from a mean of $18,660 a year to more than $75,000, which means they increased at an annual rate of almost 13%. For payers, pharmaceutical spending per 1000 beneficiaries increased tenfold; and out-of-pocket expenses to our patients also increased significantly.

So, that's the reality. But the other reality is that there have been significant advancements in the treatment of MS using pharmaceuticals. And some of these newer treatments are more effective. Moreover, some are easier to take than some of the older therapies, and some are better tolerated from a patient perspective.

As a result of dramatic increase in costs of MS drugs, payers are asking about what they are getting in return for all these dramatic increases in costs. One of the ways to demonstrate that value is to link paying for these drugs with a value-based contract.

Why is a disease such as MS a good fit for value-based contracting?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: MS is a fairly prevalent disease. Fortunately, pharmacotherapy has gotten better over the years, to the point where it's clear that the pharmacotherapy of MS has really changed the course of the disease for our patients, allowing them to maintain their quality of life and functional abilities.

On a personal level, I had a family member growing up who had MS. And she did not have the benefits of the newer drugs. And through my childhood and early adulthood, I watched as she went from a very productive working person to someone who could no longer work, was unable to take care of her children, and was institutionalized and eventually died from complications of MS. That would be unusual today.

In a value-based contract, what MS outcomes are linked to reimbursement, and how are they measured?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Traditionally, outcomes-based agreements focused on things that would be easily measured through administrative data. These are things that either a drug manufacturer or insurer, or both, have identified as being what they think are important outcomes for that disease state, but also things that they think they would be able to measure. Oftentimes, these were intermediate outcomes. Did the patient remain on a drug? Were they adherent? What was the impact on hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes? Although these outcomes may be important, they  may not be as important to our patients.

So for MS, I would argue that it's really important to try to expand on this idea of which MS-specific outcomes are meaningful to our patients, and then try to link them to reimbursement. One of the things that we do at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) is survey our stakeholders, and we ask what outcomes are important, using the Delphi method. Our most important stakeholder, of course, is our patient. But we also survey the physicians who care for these patients, other clinicians who care for these patients, our pharmacists, pharmacy benefit managers, our industry partners, and sometimes other stakeholders such as employers.

Sometimes, the things that are important to the patients are easily measured. It may be that patients with heart disease don't want to have another heart attack, and typically with a heart attack you end up going into the hospital. In the case of other disease states, however, it may be that what's most important to our patients differs from what we think is most important. We don't make any assumptions. We measure what our patients tell us.

In the case of MS, before we entered into a value-based contract, we did a Delphi survey including patients, physicians, industry partners, payers, and our pharmacy benefits manager.² We did several rounds of surveys, and in the second round we had our stakeholders rank outcomes. What we found was that the most important outcome was “worsening physical disability.” One hundred percent of our stakeholders—not just our patients, but everyone—ranked worsening physical disability as important.

I would've thought that patients would've said, “Well, I don't want an MS flare.” And we could argue that MS flares may result in worsening physical disability, but not always. When we asked what would be the easiest thing to measure, of course MS flares are the easiest thing, because they require an emergency department visit or use of corticosteroids or hospitalization.

Based on our survey, we picked disability progression as our outcome of interest and the basis for our value-based contract. We entered into a contract with Biogen for a couple of their drugs, dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex), 2 very important MS drugs. This is a classic patient-reported outcome, and of course that poses a lot of interesting challenges about how you actually measure it. So, we had to work with our subject matter experts in the clinics to identify and externally validate a patient-reported outcome that measured disability progression. We worked very hard so that we’re able to collect that in a way that doesn’t inconvenience our physicians or our patients.

There are other tools that can be used, one of which is the PROMIS tool developed through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That's a way to quantify changes in patient-reported outcomes. The interesting thing is NIH specifically developed this tool with certain disease states in mind, one of which was MS. So, some of the PROMIS domains include pain, fatigue, physical functioning, emotional distress, cognitive functioning, and social functioning. And all these things could be very important to our MS patients.

We actually do use PROMIS measures and PROMIS questionnaires routinely with our patients who come to our neurology clinic. It's not part of our value-based contracts at this point, but it's something that is a potentially interesting way to measure patient-reported outcomes.

What are the key challenges to implementing a value-based contract?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Value-based contracting has been far more laborious than I ever imagined. These are legal documents that are very long and complex, and quite daunting. We've tried our best to incorporate figures and diagrams to simplify issues and ensure that we all are understanding things similarly. But at the end of the day, despite our best efforts, these contracts remain very complex, and questions and unexpected situations develop as we implement them. So, that's been one of the challenges.

The pandemic has also posed some challenges. It has affected everything. That includes fewer patient clinic encounters, which is a challenge when some of our value-based contracts require vital signs, lab work, or other things dependent on patient visits. There are also fewer patients presenting with disease states. It’s been well documented that hospitalizations and patient visits to the emergency departments for various conditions have really plummeted in the face of the coronavirus. So, the pandemic is a clear confounder as we try to identify the value of these pharmaceuticals and how they've impacted care. That's been a huge challenge for us.

Another thing to mention is that we’ve tried to be very innovative in our value-based outcomes. But it's been very challenging to do the analyses. What seems to be clear in a contract may not be clear once you start to analyze things, as there are all sorts of scenarios that one cannot anticipate. That has required going back and forth with our industry partners. Fortunately, we have good working relationships with them, and we've been able to work out those wrinkles; but that's been a challenge.

I mentioned the importance of patient-reported outcomes, but they are a challenge to measure. How do you collect patient-reported outcomes in a way that does not pose a burden on our patients or clinicians?

Finally, a significant challenge for health care organizations and insurers that hope to do value-based contracting is that drug companies do not typically  place a lot of risk on the table. While we've been very pleased with our value-based contracts thus far, in the future we hope to see greater risk in these contracts, especially for areas such as gene therapy.

What are the next steps in value-based contracting for MS?

CHESTER GOOD, MD, MPH: Multiple sclerosis can be a progressive disease, and it's over a lifetime. It can affect people's quality of life. It can affect their ability to work. It can affect the quality of their work and what sort of things that they can do.

Because MS can affect every aspect of life, it's not enough to simply measure things like disease flares or MRI lesions. Rather, we need to figure out ways to understand how these drugs impact our patients’ day-to-day lives, the quality of their lives, and their ability to function as normally as possible. I think these other patient-reported outcomes would represent important next steps in MS outcomes measurement. Our current value-based contract has 1 simple, albeit very important, outcome that we're looking at, but are there other ways to measure patients’ quality of life? Perhaps this will involve using PROMIS measures or  other innovative ways to measure patient outcomes. We’ve discussed with some patient interest groups how to incorporate other measures that are very important to our patients.

From a payer perspective, it may not show up in terms of impacting total cost of care. Depending on the disease states, oftentimes if things progress slowly over years, it is difficult to demonstrate an impact. But it's not all only about decreasing our costs because we decrease hospitalizations; it’s also about improving the quality of our patients’ lives.

The next step for us at UPMC is to continue to gather our data and to analyze our outcomes. And based on that, we're hoping to expand our portfolio of drugs for the MS disease state and expand outcomes that we're measuring.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The absence of in-person school has harmed children in ways beyond loss of academic learning, according to Josh Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. In addition to learning, school is a place where many children receive breakfast and lunch every day, as well as support services and the benefits of being in a safe and secure environment, Dr. Sharfstein said in a press briefing sponsored by Johns Hopkins University.

However, although it is an important priority for children to return to school, “we are in the midst of a pandemic that poses real risk,” he said.

In the press briefing, several experts shared ideas and considerations for safely reopening K-12 schools in the fall of 2020.

Data from other countries where schools have reopened, notably Austria and Denmark, have been reassuring about the lack of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in a school setting, said Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. However, other countries where schools have reopened successfully have reported low levels of viral transmission locally, and a responsible strategy for school reopening in the United States should follow a similar plan, she said. In areas where transmission and infection rates are increasing “it may not be safe to reopen,” but in areas where rates are declining or stable, schools could potentially reopen if they follow safety measures.

Dr. Nuzzo suggested that schools should prioritize students who will benefit most from in-person learning, such as younger children and those with special needs. Considerations include protocols for handwashing and sanitation, and maintaining physical distance by creative use of outdoor classrooms (weather permitting) or other spaces within school buildings. Transportation to and from school also will be an issue to address, she noted.

None of the strategies being considered will completely eliminate risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in school settings, so allowing parents and students to opt out and choose distance learning will be important as well, said Dr. Nuzzo. In addition, schools may need to consider alternative roles for teachers and staff who don’t feel comfortable being in contact with students and fellow staff members. “All of these things are going to be hard,” Dr. Nuzzo acknowledged. “Hard should not be a deterrent,” to reopening schools, but “we acknowledge the resources that schools will need in order to do this.”

At present, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have released some type of plan for reopening schools, said Megan Collins, MD, MPH, codirector the Johns Hopkins Consortium for School-Based Health Solutions.

Dr. Collins and colleagues have developed a school reopening tracker, which is “a national snapshot of current reopening plans that have been released,” she said. The tracker is being updated continuously as plans evolve. The eSchool+ K-12 School Reopening Tracker identifies 12 reopening categories that states could potentially address in the plans. These categories are divided into Operational and Ethics/Equity. The operational categories include:

• Core academics
• SARS-CoV-2 protection
• Before and after school programs
• School access and transportation
• Student health services
• Food and nutrition.

Ethics/equity categories include the following:

• Parent choice
• Teacher and staff choice
• Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage
• Children with special needs/English as second language/gifted and twice exceptional
• Privacy
• Engagement and transparency.

As of July 15, 2020, 16 states (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) had addressed all 12 categories in their reopening plans, Dr. Collins said.

School reopening plans must take equity issues into account, said Annette Anderson, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Education.

Specifically, developing learning plans for special education students and others at the most risk for learning loss will be essential. “The digital divide has become a digital canyon” in some areas, Dr. Anderson noted, and schools need to rethink eligibility and work to provide access to devices for online learning for all students.

In addition, schools need to convince parents that schools are safe. She recommended that schools consider inviting parents and families to visit buildings in advance of reopening so they can see the safety measures, such as space between desks, cleaning stations, and other protective strategies.

The message to pediatricians and health care professionals when counseling families about returning individual children to school is to consider the risk to the child and the family directly in the context of the local plans, Dr. Sharfstein said during a question and answer session. “One school system’s plan is one school system’s plan,” he said, and added that families who are concerned about the risk should have an online option. However, “if you see a thoughtful approach” to reopening, with safety steps taken and parents informed, with protocols such as keeping small groups of children together to reduce transmission, “it is a pretty good trade-off,” and that is why the American Academy of Pediatrics currently favors children returning to school, he said.

The briefing participants had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

The incidence of stillbirth has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a comparative study of pregnancy outcomes in a London hospital.

“The increase in stillbirths may have resulted from indirect effects such as reluctance to attend hospital when needed (e.g., with reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting infection, or not wanting to add to the National Health Service burden,” Asma Khalil, MD, of St George’s University of London and coauthors reported in JAMA.

To further assess reported changes in stillbirth and preterm delivery rates during the pandemic, the researchers began a retrospective study of pregnancy outcomes at St George’s University Hospital in London. They compared two periods: from Oct. 1, 2019, to Jan. 31, 2020 as the pre–COVID-19 period and from Feb. 1, 2020, to June 14, 2020 as the pandemic period. The median age of the mother at time of birth in both periods was 33 years. The prepandemic period had 1,681 births, and the pandemic period had 1,718 births.

Although there were found to be fewer nulliparous women and fewer women with hypertension in the pandemic period, the incidence of stillbirth in that period was significantly higher (n = 16 [9 per 1,000 births]) than in the prepandemic period (n = 4 [2 per 1,000 births]) (difference, 7 per 1,000 births; 95% confidence interval, 1.83-12.0; P = .01). The pandemic rate remained higher when late terminations for fetal abnormality were excluded (difference 6 per 1,000 births; 95% CI 1.54-10.1; P = .01).

None of the pregnant women who experienced stillbirth had COVID-19 symptoms, and none of the postmortems or placental exams indicated infection. There were no significant differences between the two periods in regard to births before 37 weeks’ gestation, births after 34 weeks’ gestation, neonatal unit admission, or cesarean delivery.

“It’s very important to highlight the effects of the pandemic on pregnant patients, even if they’re not infected with COVID-19,” Shannon Clark, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston said in an interview.

She noted several COVID-related considerations that could have contributed to this increase: the reluctance of both low-risk and high-risk patients to enter a hospital setting during a pandemic, along with safety-centered changes made in antenatal services and care, which includes a reduced number of ultrasounds and screening exams.

“Checking a patient’s blood pressure, checking their weight changes, checking how the baby is growing,” she said. “They’re all simple things that just can’t be done via telemedicine.”

“We’ve thought a lot about the potential effects of getting COVID in pregnancy,” she added, “but it’s just as important to think about what might happen to those who don’t have it and are considered low risk otherwise.”

The study authors noted its limitations, including it being retrospective, analyzing a short time frame, and focusing on a single medical center. It also didn’t factor in the causes of the stillbirths, nor were the time periods precisely comparable, although they did add that “there is no seasonality to stillbirths in the UK.”

One doctor reported receiving grants outside of the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were noted. Dr. Clark said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Khalil A et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12746.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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