Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Those suffering from postpartum depression may have a more convenient treatment option, compared with the only drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration to specifically treat this mood disorder.

Observations from phase 3 of a clinical trial published in JAMA Psychiatry shows that zuranolone, an oral drug, improved the core symptoms of postpartum depression after just 3 days.

Postpartum depression affects approximately one in eight women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brexanolone (Zulresso), which was approved by the FDA in 2019 to treat this condition, is administered intravenously over a 60-hour period with medical supervision.

“Many women don’t have child care and are unable to go to a hospital setting for 72 hours to receive treatment,” study author Kristina Deligiannidis, MD, associate professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y., said in an interview. “The field really does need a variety of new and novel treatments that are fast acting. It is of utmost importance that we treat [postpartum depression] as quickly as possible because it has significant effects on maternal function, mood, and the ability to care for infants.”

Dr. Deligiannidis and colleagues randomly placed 153 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 45 years, who were 6 months or less post partum, into a group that would receive either a placebo or 30 mg of zuranolone daily for 2 weeks. The participants were followed for 45 days to test the effect of the drug.

Researchers measured depression using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) – where a score of 10-13 means a patient has mild symptoms, 14-17 means mild to moderate symptoms, and anything over 17 equals moderate to severe symptoms. At the baseline of the study, the average HAMD-17 score of those in the zuranolone and placebo groups were 28.4 and 28.8, respectively.

Researchers found that after day 3, 41% of those in the zuranolone group had a 50% or greater reduction in HAMD-17 score from baseline. By day 15, the day after their last dose, 72% of those who had taken zuranolone had a reduction in HAMD-17 compared with 56% of those who had taken the placebo. By day 45, that increased to 75% in the zuranolone group and 57% in the placebo group.

Dr. Deligiannidis, who initially wasn’t sure how long it would take for patients to see the beneficial effects of zuranolone, was surprised by how fast-acting the oral drug appeared to be in the clinical trial. Unlike brexanolone, which is infused into the veins and has rapid access to the brain and nervous system, zuranolone is an oral medicine that has to go through the stomach and the gastrointestinal tract, and then it has to go into the blood system and then has to cross the blood-brain barrier, she explained.

By day 15, 45% of women who took zuranolone received a HAMD-17 score of 7 or under, meaning they have remitted depression. By day 45, 53% of women who had taken the drug were in remission.

Although the zuranolone was well tolerated, about 5% of the group experienced adverse events. Of those who experienced side effects, 15% experienced drowsiness, 9% suffered from headaches, and 8% experienced dizziness and developed an upper respiratory infection. Participants also suffered diarrhea and sedation.

Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study, thought the current study’s findings were promising and would be a great alternative to brexanolone.

“You have the additional benefit that it’s an oral agent as opposed to injection, which I know a lot of patients often have concerns about,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “[It’s] an exciting prospect for clinical care to be able to prescribe an oral agent patients can feel comfortable taking at home.”

When it comes to the study’s method, Dr. Tanner noted that the researchers used the HAMD-17 scale as opposed to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), something that is used “a lot more in clinical situations and providers are a lot more familiar with.” Using the EPDS score would be more applicable “in terms of introducing these medications into true clinical care.”

In terms of follow-up, Dr. Tanner said there may be a need for ongoing research that follows the study participants for more than 45 days.

“For depressive symptoms in particular, oftentimes those symptoms ebb and flow. So seeing if there is a long-term response to these medications or just kind of an immediate onset then wane will be important in the future,” she added.

Dr. Tanner is also interested in pharmacokinetic studies involving zuranolone to see how much of the medication may potentially pass into breast milk.

Dr. Deligiannidis and Dr. Tanner had no financial disclosures.

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

[email protected]

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

[email protected]

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

[email protected]

Several recent studies have evaluated risks of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). One question regarding treatment of early RA is whether different initial treatment strategies confer different risks. In a systematic review with network meta-analysis, Adas et al reviewed differences between methotrexate, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and steroid use in early RA. Overall, risk of serious adverse events was higher with bDMARD monotherapy than methotrexate monotherapy. Of note, while generally long-term steroid use is disfavored due to adverse effects, serious adverse events were not increased in patients treated with methotrexate and steroids together. The size of differences in risk was small and study heterogeneity, including the class of bDMARDs, limits generalizability of this information; thus, variations in the studies themselves may account for these differences.

Pazmino et al also looked at treatment strategies in early RA in a post hoc analysis of participants at “low-risk” for poor prognosis in the CareRA trial, in which patients were randomized to step-up methotrexate without glucocorticoids or step-down with glucocorticoids. While pain scores and disease activity scores were similar among the two groups, analgesic use (including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and opioids) was significantly lower among those randomized to the glucocorticoid-bridging arm. Though this information is reassuring as to the utility of glucocorticoids, it is not clear that this correlation is broadly applicable, for example, among the “higher-risk” patients who might otherwise be more likely to receive glucocorticoids.

A recent analysis of the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance physician registry by Sparks et al of cases of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease looked more specifically at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA on biologic therapy. These are of interest due both to the risk of immunosuppression overall as well as the use of immunosuppressive medications in COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation. The study evaluated outcomes of hospitalization (including respiratory support and mortality). While hospitalization is difficult to evaluate as an outcome without knowing the background rate of COVID in the different areas, of the hospitalized patients, patients who used Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and rituximab received oxygen or ventilator support and had higher mortality than those who were on abatacept, IL-6 inhibitors, or TNF inhibitors. Wider interpretation is difficult due to lack of knowledge of when medications were given (including rituximab dosing), but the results suggest that concern is warranted in improving outcomes for patients with RA on these therapies.

Finally, regarding the well-known cardiovascular risk associated with RA, several observational studies have suggested that methotrexate is associated with reduction in risk of cardiovascular events. This cohort study of the Veterans Affairs RA registry followed over 2000 patients for a mean of about 5 years; a reduction in incidence of cardiovascular events was associated with methotrexate use, independent of age, body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular risk factors, RA disease activity, and other RA therapies. It may be that methotrexate use is associated with an unknown mediator of cardiovascular disease not evaluated in this study, such as reduced glucocorticoid or NSAID use, but this area deserves further investigation.

Several recent studies have evaluated risks of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). One question regarding treatment of early RA is whether different initial treatment strategies confer different risks. In a systematic review with network meta-analysis, Adas et al reviewed differences between methotrexate, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and steroid use in early RA. Overall, risk of serious adverse events was higher with bDMARD monotherapy than methotrexate monotherapy. Of note, while generally long-term steroid use is disfavored due to adverse effects, serious adverse events were not increased in patients treated with methotrexate and steroids together. The size of differences in risk was small and study heterogeneity, including the class of bDMARDs, limits generalizability of this information; thus, variations in the studies themselves may account for these differences.

Pazmino et al also looked at treatment strategies in early RA in a post hoc analysis of participants at “low-risk” for poor prognosis in the CareRA trial, in which patients were randomized to step-up methotrexate without glucocorticoids or step-down with glucocorticoids. While pain scores and disease activity scores were similar among the two groups, analgesic use (including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and opioids) was significantly lower among those randomized to the glucocorticoid-bridging arm. Though this information is reassuring as to the utility of glucocorticoids, it is not clear that this correlation is broadly applicable, for example, among the “higher-risk” patients who might otherwise be more likely to receive glucocorticoids.

A recent analysis of the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance physician registry by Sparks et al of cases of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease looked more specifically at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA on biologic therapy. These are of interest due both to the risk of immunosuppression overall as well as the use of immunosuppressive medications in COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation. The study evaluated outcomes of hospitalization (including respiratory support and mortality). While hospitalization is difficult to evaluate as an outcome without knowing the background rate of COVID in the different areas, of the hospitalized patients, patients who used Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and rituximab received oxygen or ventilator support and had higher mortality than those who were on abatacept, IL-6 inhibitors, or TNF inhibitors. Wider interpretation is difficult due to lack of knowledge of when medications were given (including rituximab dosing), but the results suggest that concern is warranted in improving outcomes for patients with RA on these therapies.

Finally, regarding the well-known cardiovascular risk associated with RA, several observational studies have suggested that methotrexate is associated with reduction in risk of cardiovascular events. This cohort study of the Veterans Affairs RA registry followed over 2000 patients for a mean of about 5 years; a reduction in incidence of cardiovascular events was associated with methotrexate use, independent of age, body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular risk factors, RA disease activity, and other RA therapies. It may be that methotrexate use is associated with an unknown mediator of cardiovascular disease not evaluated in this study, such as reduced glucocorticoid or NSAID use, but this area deserves further investigation.

Several recent studies have evaluated risks of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). One question regarding treatment of early RA is whether different initial treatment strategies confer different risks. In a systematic review with network meta-analysis, Adas et al reviewed differences between methotrexate, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and steroid use in early RA. Overall, risk of serious adverse events was higher with bDMARD monotherapy than methotrexate monotherapy. Of note, while generally long-term steroid use is disfavored due to adverse effects, serious adverse events were not increased in patients treated with methotrexate and steroids together. The size of differences in risk was small and study heterogeneity, including the class of bDMARDs, limits generalizability of this information; thus, variations in the studies themselves may account for these differences.

Pazmino et al also looked at treatment strategies in early RA in a post hoc analysis of participants at “low-risk” for poor prognosis in the CareRA trial, in which patients were randomized to step-up methotrexate without glucocorticoids or step-down with glucocorticoids. While pain scores and disease activity scores were similar among the two groups, analgesic use (including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and opioids) was significantly lower among those randomized to the glucocorticoid-bridging arm. Though this information is reassuring as to the utility of glucocorticoids, it is not clear that this correlation is broadly applicable, for example, among the “higher-risk” patients who might otherwise be more likely to receive glucocorticoids.

A recent analysis of the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance physician registry by Sparks et al of cases of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease looked more specifically at COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RA on biologic therapy. These are of interest due both to the risk of immunosuppression overall as well as the use of immunosuppressive medications in COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation. The study evaluated outcomes of hospitalization (including respiratory support and mortality). While hospitalization is difficult to evaluate as an outcome without knowing the background rate of COVID in the different areas, of the hospitalized patients, patients who used Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and rituximab received oxygen or ventilator support and had higher mortality than those who were on abatacept, IL-6 inhibitors, or TNF inhibitors. Wider interpretation is difficult due to lack of knowledge of when medications were given (including rituximab dosing), but the results suggest that concern is warranted in improving outcomes for patients with RA on these therapies.

Finally, regarding the well-known cardiovascular risk associated with RA, several observational studies have suggested that methotrexate is associated with reduction in risk of cardiovascular events. This cohort study of the Veterans Affairs RA registry followed over 2000 patients for a mean of about 5 years; a reduction in incidence of cardiovascular events was associated with methotrexate use, independent of age, body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular risk factors, RA disease activity, and other RA therapies. It may be that methotrexate use is associated with an unknown mediator of cardiovascular disease not evaluated in this study, such as reduced glucocorticoid or NSAID use, but this area deserves further investigation.

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Evaluation of a large insurance claims database has provided some insight into how ICD-10 indoor tanning codes are being used in practice, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

thinkstockphotos.com

“Since indoor tanning ICD-10 codes were only recently universally implemented in 2015, and providers may still be using other codes that cover similar services, we think our data likely underestimate the number of encounters and sequelae associated with indoor tanning,” Alexandria M. Brown, BSA, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in her presentation. “We think increased usage of these indoor tanning exposure codes in coming years will strengthen this body of indoor tanning literature and data.”

Using insurance claims data on about 43 million patients from Truven Health MarketScan, Ms. Brown and colleagues analyzed patient encounters with ICD-10 indoor tanning codes W89.1, W89.1XXA, W89.1XXD, and W89.1XXS between 2016 and 2018 for about 43 million patients. Overall, there were 4,550 patient encounters where these codes had been recorded, with most (99%) occurring in an outpatient setting. The majority of providers at these encounters were dermatologists (72%). Patients were mostly women (85%); and most were ages 25-34 years (19.4%), 35-44 years (20.6%), 45-54 years (22.7%), and 55-64 years (19%). Almost 5% were 65 and over, 11.7% were ages 18-24, and 1.6% were under age 18.

The use of indoor tanning codes were most common in the Midwest (55 per 100,000 encounters with dermatologists), compared with 16 per 100,000 in the Northeast, 21 per 100,000 in the West, and 28 per 100,000 in the South. CPT codes for “destruction of a premalignant lesion” and “biopsy” were the most frequently used codes entered at visits where indoor tanning codes were also entered, and were present in 15.1% of encounters and 18.4% of encounters, respectively.

“This suggests that many of these encounters may have been for skin cancer surveillance and that indoor tanning exposure may have been coded as part of a patient’s skin cancer risk profile,” Ms. Brown noted.

The study shows how these codes are being used and could help determine health care use patterns for these patients as well as their comorbidities, behaviors, and risk factors, according to the authors, who believe this is the first study to look at the use of ICD-10 indoor tanning codes.

“Any effort to reduce indoor tanning requires knowledge of the population at risk. It has been shown that the ability to recognize and provide counseling to at-risk patients can improve sun protective behaviors and reduce indoor tanning,” Ms. Brown said. Claims databases can be a “valuable tool to better understand patients who have been exposed to indoor tanning and their associated risk factors, comorbidities, behaviors, and health care utilization.”

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the study was interesting and “provides some guidance with respect to who, when, and where in the U.S. to target educational initiatives on the harms of tanning beds.”

Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research, agreed with the authors’ assertion that their study was underestimating the use of indoor tanning beds. “Using a large database provides the means to better generalize one’s dataset; however in this case, it relies on proper coding by the practitioner,” or even using the code for tanning bed use at all.

“There also could be some inherent bias given most of the cases for which the code was used was for skin cancer surveillance, and therefore tanning bed use was top of mind,” he said.

While he believes this study may not be most efficient way of determining demographics of at-risk individuals using tanning beds, Dr. Friedman said the results “should serve as the impetus to develop public health campaigns around this information, following which research can be conducted to evaluate if the intervention had an impact.”

Ms. Brown and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The hashtag #BigHoopEnergy has sparked an online conversation about how women of color in the medical field are pressured to conform to traditional standards of professional appearance.

It started when a Latina doctor tweeted that she lost points on a practical exam in medical school because of her hoop earrings, with the evaluator writing “earrings, unprofessional.”

That led other female doctors to cite their own experiences, reported The Lily, a Washington Post publication aimed at millennial women. Many women posted photos of themselves wearing hoops, which have long been associated with Latina and African American women, the outlet said.

“There’s a big movement to police women of color and how they present themselves in medical spaces,” said Briana Christophers, an MD-PhD student at the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program in New York. “I think in part it’s a way of trying to make people who don’t usually fit the mold, fit the mold.”

Ms. Christophers, who identifies as Latina, said she was urged to wear a black or navy suit when interviewing for doctorate programs. She wore a black suit with a lavender blouse and received comments about that – some positive, some not, she said.

“Sometimes you don’t know how to interpret those sorts of comments,” Ms. Christophers said. “Do you remember because you like the shirt, or because you don’t think I should have done that?”

Doctors of color still stand out in American medicine. The Lily cited the Association of American Medical Colleges as saying that in 2018, Hispanics made up 5.8% of active American doctors and African Americans made up 5%.

Studies show that medical professionals of color often don’t receive the same respect as their White counterparts, with some people questioning whether they’re actually doctors.

“At work, wearing my white coat that has my name pretty big on it with a badge that says doctor on it, I still get asked if I’m the environmental services staff,” Alexandra Sims, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, told The Lily. “I think it just demonstrates how deeply ingrained bias, racism, and sexism are in society and that we have a lot of work to do to disrupt that.”

Dr. Sims said the tweet about hoop earrings led her to wonder about daily decisions she makes about dress.

“Am I too much? Is this too much? Is this earring too big? Is this nail polish color too loud? And how will that be received at work?” she said, noting that she may opt not to wear hoops in certain situations, such as when she’s dealing with a grabby baby.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, said doctors should be judged on the care they provide, not their appearance.

“Judging someone based on their earrings or their jumpsuit or whatever else that they’re noticing about the student is not an appropriate way to judge the student’s ability to take care of a patient,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said, noting that she was not speaking on behalf of the school.
 

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

Breast and cervical cancer screenings declined sharply in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups and rural populations, notes the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new data come from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), a program that provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance.

The data show that the total number of screenings funded by the NBCCEDP declined by 87% for breast cancer screening and by 84% for cervical cancer screening in April 2020 in comparison with the previous 5-year averages for that month.

The declines in breast cancer screening varied from 84% among Hispanic women to 98% among American Indian/Alaskan Native women. The declines in cervical cancer screening varied from 82% among Black women to 92% among Asian Pacific Islander women.

In April 2020, breast cancer screening declined by 86% in metro areas, 88% in urban areas, and 89% in rural areas in comparison with respective 5-year averages. For cervical cancer screenings, the corresponding declines were 85%, 77%, and 82%.

The findings are consistent with those from studies conducted in insured populations, note the authors, led by the Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Prolonged delays in screening related to the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to delayed diagnoses, poor health consequences, and an increase in cancer disparities among women already experiencing health inequities,” the CDC states in a press release.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups already face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States: Black women and Hispanic women have the highest rates of cervical cancer incidence (8.3 and 8.9 per 100,000 women, respectively, vs. 7.3 per 100,000 among White women) and the highest rates of cervical cancer deaths. Black women have the highest rate of breast cancer death (26.9 per 100,000 women, vs. 19.4 per 100,000 among White women), the study authors explain.

Although the volume of screening began to recover in May 2020 – test volumes for breast and cervical cancer were 39% and 40% below the 5-year average by June 2020 – breast cancer screening in rural areas remained 52% below the 5-year average, they report.

The findings were published online June 30 in Preventive Medicine.

“This study highlights a decline in cancer screening among women of racial and ethnic minority groups with low incomes when their access to medical services decreased at the beginning of the pandemic,” Dr. DeGroff comments in the CDC press release.

The findings “reinforce the need to safely maintain routine health care services during the pandemic, especially when the health care environment meets COVID-19 safety guidelines,” she adds.

The investigators used NBCCEDP administrative and program data reported to the CDC by awardees – organizations that receive funding to implement the NBCCEDP – to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the number of breast and cervical cancer screening tests administered through the program and the effects of COVID-19 on the availability of screening services and NBCCEDP awardees’ capacity to support partner clinics.

A total of 630,264 breast and 594,566 cervical cancer screening tests were conducted during the review period of January-June 2015-2020.

Despite COVID-related challenges, “a large number of awardees reported flexibility and creative efforts to reach women and support clinics’ resumption of clinical care, including screening, during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors write.

“[The] CDC encourages health care professionals to help minimize delays in testing by continuing routine cancer screening for women having symptoms or at high risk for breast or cervical cancer,” Dr. DeGroff commented. “The Early Detection Program can help women overcome barriers to health equity by educating them about the importance of routine screening, addressing their concerns about COVID-19 transmission, and helping them to safely access screening through interventions like patient navigation.”

Future studies will examine the effect of the pandemic on screening during the second half of 2020, when surges of COVID-19 and their timing varied geographically, they note.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the approval of secnidazole to include treatment of trichomoniasis in adults, according to a statement from manufacturer Lupin Pharmaceuticals.

Trichomoniasis vaginalis is a common, nonviral, curable sexually transmitted disease that affects approximately 3 million to 5 million adults in the United States each year; the infection can linger for months or years if left untreated, and may have a negative impact on reproductive health. The drug was approved for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis in 2017.

The availability of a single-dose oral treatment for both trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis may help improve adherence and reduce risk factors associated with these conditions, including pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections, according to the statement.

The approval for the new indication was based primarily on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in which women with a confirmed trichomoniasis diagnosis were randomized to a single dose of 2 g oral secnidazole or a placebo. Secnidazole showed a 92.2% cure rate for patients with trichomoniasis, compared with placebo, based on cultures collected 6-12 days after dosing. Cure rates in subsets of patients with HIV and bacterial vaginosis were 100% and 95%, respectively.

The most common treatment-related adverse events were vulvovaginal candidiasis and nausea, each reported in 2.7% of study participants. The study findings were published in March 2021 in Clinical Infections Diseases.

Secnidazole also is approved for treatment of trichomoniasis in men, based on data from four open-label studies, one with men only and three including both men and women, according to the statement.

Full prescribing information for secnidazole is available here.

Psoriasis affects over 7.5 million adults in the United States, with prevalence nearly twice as high among Whites as non-Whites, according to an analysis of national survey data from 2011 to 2014.

“The adult prevalence rate of 3.0% continues to place psoriasis as one of the most common immune-mediated diseases affecting adults” in the United States, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, and associates said in a report published in JAMA Dermatology. At that rate, approximately 7,560,000 Americans aged 20 years or older have psoriasis.

That overall rate among adults aged 20 years and older, based on data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), did not change significantly when compared with the 2003-2004 NHANES, when it was 3.15% among those aged 20-59, said Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.

For the 2011-2014 period, psoriasis prevalence was similar between women (3.2%) and men (2.8%) but was significantly associated with older age and White/non-White status. Those aged 50-59 years had the highest prevalence of any age group at 4.3% and those aged 70 and older had a rate of 3.9%, while those aged 20-29 were the lowest at 1.6%, the investigators reported.

The prevalence in non-Hispanic Whites in the United States was 3.6% over the study period, and their odds ratio for having psoriasis was 1.92, compared with non-White individuals. Asian respondents had a prevalence of 2.5%, with the Hispanic population at 1.9%, non-Hispanic Black respondents at 1.5%, and those identifying as other (including multiracial persons) at 3.1%, they said.

The NHANES sample consisted of 12,638 people who had participated in the question that asked if they had ever been diagnosed with psoriasis by a physician or other health care professional, of whom 12,625 gave a definitive yes or no answer, the investigators noted.

A much smaller number, 329, also answered a question about the severity of their disease: Fifty-six percent had little or no psoriasis, almost 22% reported 1-2 palms of involvement, 16% had 3-10 palms of involvement, and 5.5% said the coverage was more than 10 palms. Since the survey did not distinguish between treated and untreated patients, however, some “of those reporting low body surface area involvement may be receiving treatments that are controlling their otherwise more extensive disease,” they wrote.

Dr. Armstrong and another investigator said that they have received grants, personal fees, and honoraria from a number of pharmaceutical companies; two other investigators are employees of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

Psoriasis affects over 7.5 million adults in the United States, with prevalence nearly twice as high among Whites as non-Whites, according to an analysis of national survey data from 2011 to 2014.

“The adult prevalence rate of 3.0% continues to place psoriasis as one of the most common immune-mediated diseases affecting adults” in the United States, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, and associates said in a report published in JAMA Dermatology. At that rate, approximately 7,560,000 Americans aged 20 years or older have psoriasis.

That overall rate among adults aged 20 years and older, based on data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), did not change significantly when compared with the 2003-2004 NHANES, when it was 3.15% among those aged 20-59, said Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.

For the 2011-2014 period, psoriasis prevalence was similar between women (3.2%) and men (2.8%) but was significantly associated with older age and White/non-White status. Those aged 50-59 years had the highest prevalence of any age group at 4.3% and those aged 70 and older had a rate of 3.9%, while those aged 20-29 were the lowest at 1.6%, the investigators reported.

The prevalence in non-Hispanic Whites in the United States was 3.6% over the study period, and their odds ratio for having psoriasis was 1.92, compared with non-White individuals. Asian respondents had a prevalence of 2.5%, with the Hispanic population at 1.9%, non-Hispanic Black respondents at 1.5%, and those identifying as other (including multiracial persons) at 3.1%, they said.

The NHANES sample consisted of 12,638 people who had participated in the question that asked if they had ever been diagnosed with psoriasis by a physician or other health care professional, of whom 12,625 gave a definitive yes or no answer, the investigators noted.

A much smaller number, 329, also answered a question about the severity of their disease: Fifty-six percent had little or no psoriasis, almost 22% reported 1-2 palms of involvement, 16% had 3-10 palms of involvement, and 5.5% said the coverage was more than 10 palms. Since the survey did not distinguish between treated and untreated patients, however, some “of those reporting low body surface area involvement may be receiving treatments that are controlling their otherwise more extensive disease,” they wrote.

Dr. Armstrong and another investigator said that they have received grants, personal fees, and honoraria from a number of pharmaceutical companies; two other investigators are employees of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

Psoriasis affects over 7.5 million adults in the United States, with prevalence nearly twice as high among Whites as non-Whites, according to an analysis of national survey data from 2011 to 2014.

“The adult prevalence rate of 3.0% continues to place psoriasis as one of the most common immune-mediated diseases affecting adults” in the United States, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, and associates said in a report published in JAMA Dermatology. At that rate, approximately 7,560,000 Americans aged 20 years or older have psoriasis.

That overall rate among adults aged 20 years and older, based on data from the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), did not change significantly when compared with the 2003-2004 NHANES, when it was 3.15% among those aged 20-59, said Dr. Armstrong, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.

For the 2011-2014 period, psoriasis prevalence was similar between women (3.2%) and men (2.8%) but was significantly associated with older age and White/non-White status. Those aged 50-59 years had the highest prevalence of any age group at 4.3% and those aged 70 and older had a rate of 3.9%, while those aged 20-29 were the lowest at 1.6%, the investigators reported.

The prevalence in non-Hispanic Whites in the United States was 3.6% over the study period, and their odds ratio for having psoriasis was 1.92, compared with non-White individuals. Asian respondents had a prevalence of 2.5%, with the Hispanic population at 1.9%, non-Hispanic Black respondents at 1.5%, and those identifying as other (including multiracial persons) at 3.1%, they said.

The NHANES sample consisted of 12,638 people who had participated in the question that asked if they had ever been diagnosed with psoriasis by a physician or other health care professional, of whom 12,625 gave a definitive yes or no answer, the investigators noted.

A much smaller number, 329, also answered a question about the severity of their disease: Fifty-six percent had little or no psoriasis, almost 22% reported 1-2 palms of involvement, 16% had 3-10 palms of involvement, and 5.5% said the coverage was more than 10 palms. Since the survey did not distinguish between treated and untreated patients, however, some “of those reporting low body surface area involvement may be receiving treatments that are controlling their otherwise more extensive disease,” they wrote.

Dr. Armstrong and another investigator said that they have received grants, personal fees, and honoraria from a number of pharmaceutical companies; two other investigators are employees of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.