User login
Robust immune response after COVID-19 boosters in those with IBD
Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.
“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.
“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.
Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
A study design to measure boosters’ benefits
For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”
They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.
Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.
Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.
Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.
Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.
Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.
“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
A ‘reassuring’ finding
“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.
The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.
“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.
“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.
“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.
Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
A study design to measure boosters’ benefits
For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”
They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.
Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.
Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.
Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.
Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.
Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.
“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
A ‘reassuring’ finding
“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.
The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.
“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Of the study participants, 93% had detectable antibodies after their initial vaccination series, which increased to 99.5% following an additional dose.
“Most IBD patients, including those who are immune suppressed and/or did not have detectable humoral immune responses following the initial mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series, demonstrate strong immune responses to additional doses of mRNA vaccines,” Michael D. Kappelman, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told this news organization.
“These data support an additional vaccine dose of mRNA vaccine in patients at risk for an inadequate response to the initial series,” he said.
Dr. Kappelman presented these findings on behalf of the PREVENT-COVID Study Group as an e-poster at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
A study design to measure boosters’ benefits
For people with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who are taking immunosuppressants, boosters are generally recommended, Dr. Kappelman and colleagues noted. However, “real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of additional vaccine doses are lacking.”
They studied 659 people with IBD (mean age, 45 years; 72% female), of whom 72% had Crohn’s disease and 27% had ulcerative colitis/unclassified IBD.
Of these participants, 63% received Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 37% received the Moderna vaccine. Five participants received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In 98% of cases, people who received an mRNA vaccine initially also received the same type for the additional dose.
Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Their blood work was obtained and evaluated 8 weeks after completion of the initial vaccine series and 6 weeks after a booster to measure anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibody levels specific to SARS-CoV-2.
Mean increase in antibody levels was 61 µg/mL in the Pfizer vaccine group and 78 µg/mL in the Moderna vaccine group following the booster shot.
Of the 47 patients without initial antibody response, 45 (96%) had detectable antibodies following an additional dose.
Serious adverse events (AEs) associated with the booster were rare, Dr. Kappelman said. Among participants, 44% reported no AEs, 24% mild AEs, 25% moderate AEs, and 6% reported serious AEs.
“These data can be used to inform vaccine decisions in patients with a broad array of immune-medicated conditions frequently managed by immunosuppression,” the investigators note.
A ‘reassuring’ finding
“This abstract [gives us] an important understanding about how patients with inflammatory bowel disease respond to COVID-19 vaccination. There have been mixed reports in the prior studies regarding how well patients with IBD respond to vaccination,” Jason Ken Hou, MD, said when asked to comment on the research.
The main findings that 99.5% of patients had detectable antibodies after an additional dose “is reassuring, as prior studies have suggested some patients did not develop antibodies after the [initial series],” added Dr. Hou, associate professor of medicine-gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
The researchers conducted the study within a previously established, well-known Internet-based cohort of IBD patients, Dr. Hou said. Although the researchers collected information on the IBD medications that patients were taking at the time of vaccination, the analyses that were presented did not compare antibody response rates based on medication.
“Further study is still required, as there is more to vaccination response than detectable antibody alone,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECCO 2022
First possible case of deer-to-human COVID transmission identified
according a new preprint study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.
Typically, humans spread the virus to deer, and then deer spread it to other deer. But new evidence suggests that the virus could spill over from deer into humans. The researchers identified a COVID-19 case in someone from Ontario who had recently been in contact with deer.
“This particular case, while raising a red flag, doesn’t seem to be hugely alarming,” Finlay Maguire, PhD, one of the study authors and an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University, told CBC News.
“While we haven’t seen [transmission from deer to humans] happen directly, we sampled from the human case around the same time we sampled from the deer, and we sampled from around the same location,” he said. “There is also a plausible link by which it could have happened, in that the individual involved is known to have had considerable contact with deer.”
Dr. Maguire and colleagues have been monitoring the spread of the coronavirus among animals. They analyzed nasal swabs and lymph node samples taken from hundreds of deer that were killed by hunters in fall 2021 in southwestern and eastern Ontario. Among 298 sampled deer, 17 tested positive -- all from southwestern Ontario.
During the analysis, they found a “highly divergent” coronavirus lineage, which means a cluster of samples with many mutations. Around the same time, they found a genetically similar version in a person from the same region.
The study points to the need for better surveillance of the coronavirus, Dr. Maguire told CBC News, including in humans, animals, plants, and the broader environment. Researchers aren’t quite sure how deer contract the virus from humans, but it could happen through contaminated water, direct contact, food, farming, or other animals such as mink.
The coronavirus lineage identified in the study is different from what’s circulating among humans now, and it’s not related to the Delta or Omicron variants. The closest genetic relative came from samples taken from humans and mink in Michigan in 2020, which means the divergent lineage mutated and evolved over time.
“It’s reassuring that we found no evidence of further transmission, during a time when we were doing a lot of sampling and a lot of sequencing,” Samira Mubareka, MD, one of the study authors and a virologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, told CBC News.
“If we continue to do this surveillance, we’ll get a much better sense of what the actual risk is,” she said.
So far, the coronavirus has been found in wild white-tailed deer in the northeastern United States and central Canadian provinces.
Other known cases of transmission from animals to humans have been identified in farmed mink and potentially hamsters, the news outlet reported. But for the most part, humans transmit the virus to animals and are most likely to catch the virus from other people.
At the same time, the Public Health Agency of Canada has issued guidance for hunters, trappers, and those who handle wild deer. People should wear gloves, goggles, and a mask when they could be exposed to respiratory tissues and fluids, especially indoors.
Coronaviruses are killed by normal cooking temperatures, the agency said, and there has been no evidence that cooked venison can spread the virus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according a new preprint study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.
Typically, humans spread the virus to deer, and then deer spread it to other deer. But new evidence suggests that the virus could spill over from deer into humans. The researchers identified a COVID-19 case in someone from Ontario who had recently been in contact with deer.
“This particular case, while raising a red flag, doesn’t seem to be hugely alarming,” Finlay Maguire, PhD, one of the study authors and an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University, told CBC News.
“While we haven’t seen [transmission from deer to humans] happen directly, we sampled from the human case around the same time we sampled from the deer, and we sampled from around the same location,” he said. “There is also a plausible link by which it could have happened, in that the individual involved is known to have had considerable contact with deer.”
Dr. Maguire and colleagues have been monitoring the spread of the coronavirus among animals. They analyzed nasal swabs and lymph node samples taken from hundreds of deer that were killed by hunters in fall 2021 in southwestern and eastern Ontario. Among 298 sampled deer, 17 tested positive -- all from southwestern Ontario.
During the analysis, they found a “highly divergent” coronavirus lineage, which means a cluster of samples with many mutations. Around the same time, they found a genetically similar version in a person from the same region.
The study points to the need for better surveillance of the coronavirus, Dr. Maguire told CBC News, including in humans, animals, plants, and the broader environment. Researchers aren’t quite sure how deer contract the virus from humans, but it could happen through contaminated water, direct contact, food, farming, or other animals such as mink.
The coronavirus lineage identified in the study is different from what’s circulating among humans now, and it’s not related to the Delta or Omicron variants. The closest genetic relative came from samples taken from humans and mink in Michigan in 2020, which means the divergent lineage mutated and evolved over time.
“It’s reassuring that we found no evidence of further transmission, during a time when we were doing a lot of sampling and a lot of sequencing,” Samira Mubareka, MD, one of the study authors and a virologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, told CBC News.
“If we continue to do this surveillance, we’ll get a much better sense of what the actual risk is,” she said.
So far, the coronavirus has been found in wild white-tailed deer in the northeastern United States and central Canadian provinces.
Other known cases of transmission from animals to humans have been identified in farmed mink and potentially hamsters, the news outlet reported. But for the most part, humans transmit the virus to animals and are most likely to catch the virus from other people.
At the same time, the Public Health Agency of Canada has issued guidance for hunters, trappers, and those who handle wild deer. People should wear gloves, goggles, and a mask when they could be exposed to respiratory tissues and fluids, especially indoors.
Coronaviruses are killed by normal cooking temperatures, the agency said, and there has been no evidence that cooked venison can spread the virus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according a new preprint study that hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed.
Typically, humans spread the virus to deer, and then deer spread it to other deer. But new evidence suggests that the virus could spill over from deer into humans. The researchers identified a COVID-19 case in someone from Ontario who had recently been in contact with deer.
“This particular case, while raising a red flag, doesn’t seem to be hugely alarming,” Finlay Maguire, PhD, one of the study authors and an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University, told CBC News.
“While we haven’t seen [transmission from deer to humans] happen directly, we sampled from the human case around the same time we sampled from the deer, and we sampled from around the same location,” he said. “There is also a plausible link by which it could have happened, in that the individual involved is known to have had considerable contact with deer.”
Dr. Maguire and colleagues have been monitoring the spread of the coronavirus among animals. They analyzed nasal swabs and lymph node samples taken from hundreds of deer that were killed by hunters in fall 2021 in southwestern and eastern Ontario. Among 298 sampled deer, 17 tested positive -- all from southwestern Ontario.
During the analysis, they found a “highly divergent” coronavirus lineage, which means a cluster of samples with many mutations. Around the same time, they found a genetically similar version in a person from the same region.
The study points to the need for better surveillance of the coronavirus, Dr. Maguire told CBC News, including in humans, animals, plants, and the broader environment. Researchers aren’t quite sure how deer contract the virus from humans, but it could happen through contaminated water, direct contact, food, farming, or other animals such as mink.
The coronavirus lineage identified in the study is different from what’s circulating among humans now, and it’s not related to the Delta or Omicron variants. The closest genetic relative came from samples taken from humans and mink in Michigan in 2020, which means the divergent lineage mutated and evolved over time.
“It’s reassuring that we found no evidence of further transmission, during a time when we were doing a lot of sampling and a lot of sequencing,” Samira Mubareka, MD, one of the study authors and a virologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, told CBC News.
“If we continue to do this surveillance, we’ll get a much better sense of what the actual risk is,” she said.
So far, the coronavirus has been found in wild white-tailed deer in the northeastern United States and central Canadian provinces.
Other known cases of transmission from animals to humans have been identified in farmed mink and potentially hamsters, the news outlet reported. But for the most part, humans transmit the virus to animals and are most likely to catch the virus from other people.
At the same time, the Public Health Agency of Canada has issued guidance for hunters, trappers, and those who handle wild deer. People should wear gloves, goggles, and a mask when they could be exposed to respiratory tissues and fluids, especially indoors.
Coronaviruses are killed by normal cooking temperatures, the agency said, and there has been no evidence that cooked venison can spread the virus.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Direct specialty care: Concierge service without the price tag
Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.
Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”
“Overbook him!” I said.
This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.
In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.
Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.
After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.
I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.
I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.
Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.
Why?
Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.
I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.
Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.
Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.
I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.
I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.
After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.
Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.
Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”
“Overbook him!” I said.
This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.
In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.
Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.
After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.
I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.
I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.
Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.
Why?
Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.
I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.
Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.
Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.
I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.
I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.
After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.
Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago, I was fully employed in a “traditional” rheumatology clinic. I met Alan, a 42-year-old gentleman who was a high school math teacher in my town. He was the first patient on my panel that day. Once I entered the examining room, Alan greeted me with: “You are the third rheumatologist who I have consulted for what everybody believes is fibromyalgia. I am paying out of pocket to see you as you are not on my insurance panel. I have researched your background, and I have high expectations of you.” He was cutting to the chase.
Alan had struggled with pain for about 1½ years. He insisted that he was very healthy before his symptoms started abruptly. In the past 2 years, his personal life had been under much stress as he was caring for a disabled child and facing an imminent divorce. While his symptoms were suggestive of an inflammatory arthritis, his workup was not. Unfortunately, the allocated time with Alan was 15 minutes – too short to cover both medical and personal struggles. Meanwhile, my nurses had to room in another two patients. I felt rushed and responsible for not letting the others wait. I asked Alan to keep a diary of his symptoms and come back in 2 weeks. A few minutes after discharging Alan, my nurse followed and asked me: “Where would you like me to add this patient, as you have no openings for 4 months ?”
“Overbook him!” I said.
This was happening almost every day. Scheduled patients, overbooked patients, tens of emails, calls to patients, and fights with insurance companies to approve tests and medications. Nearly every day I was getting home, preparing dinner, feeding my family, and going back to writing notes, as I would be financially penalized if my notes were not submitted in 24-48 hours. I had no time for my family and didn’t even think about any hobbies.
In 2 weeks, Alan came back for his visit. That day, I paid someone to take my kids to school and came to my office earlier. We had 1 hour to talk about his history. At the end of the visit, Alan said: “What kind of doctor are you? You looked into my eyes while I was talking, and you didn’t touch the computer keyboard?!” His remark was not uncommon for me. Most patients complain that physicians spend more time typing than looking at them. Maybe patients do not realize, but this is the only way that physicians get paid: writing the “proper notes” and placing the correct billing code.
Alan was diagnosed and treated successfully for seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. In 1 year, paying out of pocket to see me, he ended up spending many, many thousands of dollars. As you can imagine, I was not in control of those bills.
After 4 years in the traditional system, I decided to change something for my patients and for myself as their physician, and as a mother of three kids, a wife, a daughter, and a sister.
I decided to create a clinic where I am comfortable practicing “uncomplicated” medicine, as a friend of mine said. Today, insurance companies are restricting patients to limited panels of specialists. They dictate patients’ care, giving the false impression that they will save money. Insurance companies interfere with the physician’s medical judgment. They make algorithms to approve tests and have preferred lists of medication. They decide whether a test or a medication is appropriate for you. In addition, they don’t disclose how much they pay for your consultation, tests, and medication, and they ban the contracted parties from disclosing this information. They force patients to use their testing facilities and mailing pharmacies. Although patients and employers are the payers, they do not have access to their insurance companies’ “real” prices.
I decided that it was time to take control of my time spent with patients to make my services available when patients need me, without becoming a financial burden. I created a clinic where patients do not have copayments and will never receive a “surprise bill.” All costs are transparent to patients, including laboratory and imaging tests. Patients can talk to me on the phone, send a text, or email. A clinic where patients can talk to the physician on the phone or send a text or email? This is direct specialty care.
Is direct care a new concept? No, not at all. Is direct care the same as concierge medicine? I think it is a type of concierge service, but without the price tag.
Why?
Physicians practicing the traditional concierge medicine model here in the United States still bill patients’ insurance. In addition, to make their practice profitable, they charge a retainer fee that will allow them to keep a small patient panel. In contrast, direct care specialists do not have a contract with insurance companies.
I believe that both concierge medicine and direct care specialists offer exceptional care and better access to physicians. The difference is in costs: One is more expensive than the other. Traditional concierge medicine practices usually ask for high retainer fees in addition to copayments for visits. They do not offer any access to discounted pricing for laboratory or imaging tests. Patients continue to receive surprise bills from their insurance company.
Why don’t direct specialty care practices contract with insurance companies? Contracting with insurance companies increases a practice’s overhead costs (as more money is spent on coding and billing services and more office staff). When practice overhead is lower, the cost of patient care can be significantly lower. Patients pay a monthly membership to become a direct specialty care practice member. The membership covers the cost of visits and access to the benefits of the practice. In addition, direct care specialists do not charge copayments or send surprise bills. They can contract directly with laboratory and imaging centers and offer discounted prices. Patients with insurance are welcome to use it to cover tests, imaging, and medication. The patient has the power to choose between paying a cash price versus a “covered” service.
Most young patients, like Alan, have a high-deductible plan. A few regular blood tests might cost a patient hundreds of dollars before meeting a deductible. One MRI scan costs $4,000-$6,000. Patients who join a direct specialty care practice pay $30-$40 for regular labs and $400-$500 for an MRI.
I am now 2 years into practicing medicine as a direct care specialist. It is not a dream anymore. Yes, you may call it “concierge medicine without the price tag.” I call it “direct specialty care.” My patients and I are both accountable to one another. Together, we make a plan, and we have the time to implement it.
I am not alone. Other specialists are embracing this model. That is why we created the Direct Specialty Care Alliance, a place where physicians are welcome to network and share with others what they have learned along their journeys.
After I started my company, Alan was one of the first patients to join. He embraced my practice model and became one of the ambassadors of the direct specialty care movement. He is back to a normal life of taking care of his family, getting his wife back, and teaching math to high school kids.
Dr Girnita is the CEO and founder of RheumatologistOnCall, actively seeing patients via telemedicine in 10 U.S. states. She is an advocate for digital health and telemedicine that will empower physicians and patients to take charge of their medical care. She is a cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EMA recommends PreHevbri hepatitis B vaccine for approval
The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.
The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.
The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.
PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.
The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.
The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.
The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.
The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.
PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.
The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.
The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.
The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.
The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.
PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.
The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.
The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Evidence mounts for paramagnetic rim lesions in diagnosing MS
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research suggests.
Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.
Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.
“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
Sign of aggressive disease?
Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.
In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.
At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).
At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.
Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.
The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).
After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).
Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).
“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.
“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.
Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
Diagnostic value
The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).
Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.
Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.
Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.
“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
Promising data
During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.
“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.
“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.
Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”
Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”
Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.
“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.
During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.
Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research suggests.
Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.
Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.
“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
Sign of aggressive disease?
Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.
In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.
At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).
At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.
Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.
The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).
After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).
Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).
“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.
“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.
Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
Diagnostic value
The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).
Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.
Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.
Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.
“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
Promising data
During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.
“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.
“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.
Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”
Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”
Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.
“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.
During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.
Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research suggests.
Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.
Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.
“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.
The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
Sign of aggressive disease?
Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.
In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.
At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).
At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.
Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.
The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).
After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).
Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).
“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.
“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.
Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
Diagnostic value
The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).
Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.
Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.
Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.
“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
Promising data
During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.
“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.
“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.
Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”
Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”
Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.
“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.
During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.
Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2022
Spinal cord atrophy predicts ‘silent progression’ in MS
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.
“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.
“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.
Dr. Bischof presented the findings at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
Relatively new concept
Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.
However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.
“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).
To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.
They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.
To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.
Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
‘Strongest predictor’
The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).
Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).
“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.
Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.
Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).
“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
Standard of care?
While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.
Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.
“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
Treatment implications
Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.
“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.
Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.
“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.
Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.
He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.
“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.
Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.
“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.
“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.
Dr. Bischof presented the findings at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
Relatively new concept
Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.
However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.
“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).
To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.
They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.
To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.
Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
‘Strongest predictor’
The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).
Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).
“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.
Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.
Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).
“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
Standard of care?
While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.
Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.
“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
Treatment implications
Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.
“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.
Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.
“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.
Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.
He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.
“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.
Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – , new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.
“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.
“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.
Dr. Bischof presented the findings at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
Relatively new concept
Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.
However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.
“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).
To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.
They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.
To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.
Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
‘Strongest predictor’
The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).
Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).
“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.
Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.
Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).
“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
Standard of care?
While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.
Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.
“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
Treatment implications
Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.
“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.
Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.
“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.
Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.
He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.
“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.
Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2022
Some physicians still lack access to COVID-19 vaccines
It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office.
I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians
The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.
In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.
Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
Recommended next steps, solutions to problem
The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.
Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.
Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.
The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.
The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.
While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.
Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].
It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office.
I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians
The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.
In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.
Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
Recommended next steps, solutions to problem
The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.
Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.
Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.
The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.
The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.
While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.
Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].
It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office.
I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians
The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.
In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.
Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
Recommended next steps, solutions to problem
The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.
Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.
Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.
The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.
The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.
While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.
Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].
Should all women be routinely screened for lung cancer?
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
especially those with a history of breast cancer, according to a new study published in BJS Open.
The 2021 screening guidelines include adults aged between 50 and 80 years who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, but the guidelines do not include nonsmokers or patients with a history of previous malignancies, such as breast cancer.
Led by Daniela Molena, MD, a thoracic surgeon and director of esophageal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, researchers conducted an analysis of 2,192 women with first-time lung cancer who underwent lung resections at Memorial Sloan Kettering between January 2000 and December 2017. The study’s objective was to determine stage at diagnosis, survival, and eligibility for lung cancer screening among patients with lung cancer who had a previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who did not have a history of breast cancer.
Only 331 (15.1%) patients were previously diagnosed with breast cancer, which was not statistically significant. “Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in genomic or oncogenic pathway alterations between the two groups, which suggests that lung cancer in patients who previously had breast cancer may not be affected at the genomic level by the previous breast cancer,” the authors wrote.
However, at 58.4%, more than half of patients in the study (1,281 patients) were prior smokers and only 33.3% met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening, which the authors said was concerning.
“The most important finding of the study was that a high percentage of women with lung cancer, regardless of breast cancer history, did not meet the current USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. This is very important given the observation that nearly half of the women included in the study did not have a history of smoking. As such, the role of imaging for other causes, such as cancer surveillance, becomes especially important for early cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Molena and colleagues wrote. “To reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses, further assessment of guidelines for lung cancer screening for all women may be needed.”
Instead, for almost half of women in the study group with a history of breast cancer, the lung cancer was detected on a routine follow-up imaging scan.
USPSTF guidelines for lung cancer screening do not include previous malignancy as a high-risk feature requiring evaluation, which may explain why so few women in this study were screened for lung cancer, even though lung cancer is more common in breast cancer survivors than the general population. Approximately 10% of women who have had breast cancer will develop a second malignancy within 10 years and in most cases, it will be lung cancer. Plus, according to the National Cancer Institute, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the three most common cancers in women and account for approximately 50% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2020.
A 2018 analysis published in Frontiers in Oncology found that, of more than 6,000 women with secondary primary lung cancer after having had breast cancer, 42% had distant-stage disease at the time of diagnosis which, Dr. Molena and colleagues said, suggests an ongoing need to update screening recommendations.
“Given that lung cancer has a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 20% (highlighting the benefits of early-stage diagnosis), a better understanding of lung cancer in women with a history of breast cancer could have important implications for screening and surveillance,” the authors wrote.
Estrogen is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer by activating the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Previous research has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in patients with estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2-negative, or triple-negative breast cancer.
“Antiestrogen treatment has been demonstrated to decrease the incidence of lung cancer and has been associated with improved long-term survival in patients with lung cancer after breast cancer. Future studies should seek to identify high-risk populations on the basis of hormone receptor status and antiestrogen therapy use,” the authors wrote.
The authors noted a number of limitations to the study, including the single hospital as the sole source of data, plus, the analysis did not account for the length of time since patients quit smoking and a lung cancer diagnosis. Nor did it consider other risk factors, such as radiation, chemotherapy, or antiestrogen therapies.
The authors did not disclose any study-related conflicts of interests.
This article was updated 3/2/22.
FROM BJS OPEN
IBD-VTE score serves as reminder to assess postdischarge risk
The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.
The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).
“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.
“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.
“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.
“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
VTE risk in IBD patients
The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”
Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.
The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
Large hospitalized IBD population considered
Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.
“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.
All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.
A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.
With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”
Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.
Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation
“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.
The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.
“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.
Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.
The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).
“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.
“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.
“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.
“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
VTE risk in IBD patients
The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”
Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.
The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
Large hospitalized IBD population considered
Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.
“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.
All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.
A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.
With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”
Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.
Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation
“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.
The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.
“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.
Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
The chances of developing a blood clot after hospital admission for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may persist for several months after being discharged, but a new simple score might help clinicians identify patients who are at greatest risk.
The score – which takes eight, easily captured factors into consideration – had a reasonable ability to distinguish between people who did and did not develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), with an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.72).
“There is clearly an excess of risk for VTE in patients admitted for IBD in the 90 days following their hospital discharge,” said Philip Harvey, MD, a consultant gastroenterologist with the Royal Wolverhampton (England) NHS Trust at the 17th congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.
“Advancing age, male gender, emergency admission, longer admissions, and ulcerative colitis are particularly important risk factors,” he noted.
“We have proposed a risk-scoring system that will be generalizable to patients under the age of 60 using readily identifiable clinical data so that clinicians can identify patients who are at the greatest risk,” Dr. Harvey added when presenting the work.
“This research provides much needed evidence to guide posthospitalization anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for IBD flares,” Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, independently commented.
“Surgeons are already discharging select patients on anticoagulation for DVT [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis [but] we need to consider this more systematically after medical IBD admissions,” suggested Dr. Kochar, who is a gastroenterologist and IBD specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“This research should spur prospective investigation into type of anticoagulation upon discharge, dose, duration and whether the intervention makes a difference in postdischarge clotting events in patients hospitalized for a flare of IBD,” she added.
VTE risk in IBD patients
The risk and prevention of VTE and arterial thrombosis in IBD patients was the focus of a recent international consensus project in which 14 international IBD experts and three thrombosis experts from 12 countries came together to develop evidence-based guidance. Nineteen statements and 10 core recommendations were made, notably that “patients with IBD should be screened for VTE risk factors” and that “thromboprophylaxis should be given to patients with IBD during hospitalization of any cause and maintained during the inpatient period.”
Although met with a high level of agreement among the expert panel, these recommendations were supported by a low (grade C/D) level of evidence.
The expert panel observed in their conclusions that “development of specific risk-assessment tools for thrombotic complications in patients with IBD are needed, as they might influence management in some clinical scenarios (such as thromboprophylaxis during ambulatory flares).”
Large hospitalized IBD population considered
Dr. Harvey and fellow investigators’ IBD-VTE risk score was created using data from almost 102,000 patients (49,385 of whom were men) with just greater than 201,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2019. These data were taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a “data warehouse” that collects details of all emergency, routine, and outpatient hospital attendances at NHS hospitals in England.
“The HES database is advantageous due to its size because VTE events are relatively uncommon in this group, and therefore it’s important to capture as many patients as possible,” Dr. Harvey explained.
All admissions, from emergencies without surgery to those involving surgery, and those for more routine cases of elective surgery were considered, with the most common (79.3%) admission type being nonsurgical emergencies.
A multilevel logistic regression model was used to identify patient and admission factors that might influence the risk for VTE.
With regard to the number of VTE events seen, Dr. Harvey noted: “There was an enormous excess of events and risk in that 0-90 day period, compared to 180-270 days later. This was true across all admission types.”
Indeed, VTE rates per 100,000 people in the 0-90 day postoperative period were 36.9 for emergency surgical admissions, and 15.6 for both nonsurgical emergencies and elective surgeries. Rates in the later period were a respective 0.84, 1.59, and 1.70.
Key risk factors for VTE were male gender, older age, emergency admission with or without surgery, longer hospital stays, and having ulcerative colitis which were included in the scoring system together with number of prior IBD hospital admissions in the past 3 months, ethnicity, and number of comorbidities.
Ideal thromboprophylaxis duration under investigation
“A higher risk of DVT is known in these patients and all should be considered for postoperative VTE prevention,” said Robert Neil Goldstone, MD, who is assistant professor of surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
“Many scores can be used, including the Caprini score, which also adds a point for patient history of IBD,” he observed.
The flip-side of VTE is of course the risk for postsurgical bleeding. While this is something clinicians need to be cognizant of there is “not generally increased risk” with some of the more commonly used anticoagulants, Dr. Goldstone noted. In his practice, “high-risk” IBD patients who have undergone bowel surgery will commonly be discharged on a low-molecular-weight heparin treatment for at least 3-4 weeks.
“The bigger question that remains is whether prolonged postoperative thromboprophylaxis is required,” Dr. Goldstone said. This is something that needs examining in a large randomized controlled trial.
Dr. Harvey and coinvestigators had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Kochar is on the Board of Editors for GI & Hepatology News but had no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Goldstone was also not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
FROM ECCO 2022
Needle-free epinephrine products could be available in 2023
Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.
Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.
Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.”
Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.
Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).
Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall.
Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.
Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.
“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”
Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.
Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.
Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.”
Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.
Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).
Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall.
Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.
Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.
“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”
Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Longstanding anxiety around use of epinephrine autoinjectors has prompted research into alternative delivery routes for this life-saving medication. Several companies presented posters on their needle-free epinephrine products at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.
Intranasal formulations are under development at ARS Pharmaceuticals (San Diego) and Bryn Pharma (Raleigh, N.C.). And Aquestive Therapeutics (Warren, N.J.) is working on a sublingual film that delivers epinephrine prodrug when applied under the tongue.
Epinephrine is essential for stopping life-threatening allergic reactions, yet patients often don’t carry their autoinjectors and many hesitate to use them. “It’s needle phobia,” said ARS Pharmaceuticals CEO Richard Lowenthal in an interview with this news organization. “They’re afraid to use it. They don’t like to inject their children, so they hesitate.”
Both nasal sprays reached maximal plasma concentration in 20-30 minutes. ARS Pharmaceuticals compared its intranasal product (Neffy 1 mg) against manual intramuscular injection (0.3 mg) and two autoinjectors (EpiPen 0.3 mg and Symjepi 0.3 mg) by analyzing data from multiple randomized crossover Phase 1 studies examining pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in 175 healthy adults. In this integrated analysis, EpiPen was fastest (20 minutes) at reaching maximal concentration (Tmax), followed by Symjepi and Neffy (both 30 minutes) and epinephrine 0.3 mg IM (45 minutes). In a human factors analysis, ARS Pharmaceuticals reported that untrained participants were able to administer the Neffy spray to themselves or another participant safely and effectively during a simulated emergency scenario.
Bryn Pharma compared pharmacokinetics of its nasal spray product (BRYN-NDS1C 6.6 mg) when self-administered or administered by trained professionals and found comparable profiles for each. Tmax values were also similar: 21.63 minutes (trained professional) and 19.82 minutes (self-administered).
Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a postage stamp-sized product (AQST-109) that delivers epinephrine and begins dissolving when placed under the tongue. No water or swallowing is required for administration, and its packaging is thinner and smaller than a credit card, according to CEO Keith Kendall.
Its analysis showed that the epinephrine reaches maximum plasma concentration in about 15 minutes, with a Tmax range narrower than that of the EpiPen. “The results showed dosing with AQST-109 resulted in PK concentration and Tmax values comparable to published data from autoinjectors,” said John Oppenheimer, MD, of Rutgers University School of Medicine, in a prerecorded poster summary.
Aquestive aims to move forward to the manufacture of registration batches and a pivotal pharmacokinetic study in the second half of 2022. Mr. Lowenthal said ARS Pharmaceuticals is hoping for approval and launch of its nasal spray by summer 2023.
“Having a non-needle delivery device would help many people overcome that fear and hopefully increase use in anaphylaxis,” said David Stukus, MD, an allergist-immunologist and professor of clinical pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, who was not involved with any of the studies on EpiPen alternatives. And “it’s not just food allergy – anaphylaxis can occur from venom stings, medications, or idiopathic causes.”
Mr. Lowenthal is the CEO of ARS Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Kendall is CEO of Aquestive Therapeutics. Dr. Oppenheimer is a consultant for Aquestive, GSK, Amgen, Sanofi, and Aimmune and sits on Aquestive’s advisory board. Dr. Stukus is a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAAAI