Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected intermediate- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to investigators from the phase 3 SORCE trial.

“The results of the SORCE trial will end the debate about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma for most investigators,” Tim Eisen, MBBChir, PhD, of Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview. 

Dr. Eisen and colleagues reported results from SORCE in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk RCC after surgical resection have 5-year relapse rates of 30%-40% and 5-year survival of 74.8% that declines steeply to 16% with metastatic disease, Dr. Eisen and colleagues wrote.

While adjuvant strategies – including cytokines, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy – have not yielded success, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor have shown efficacy in metastatic RCC.

With inconsistent results in randomized trials of TKIs in the adjuvant RCC setting, however, active surveillance after nephrectomy has remained the international standard of care. SORCE was conducted “to settle the question of adjuvant TKI therapy” in RCC, according to Dr. Eisen and colleagues.

The investigators enrolled 1,711 patients with completely resected, clear cell or non–clear cell RCC at intermediate or high risk of relapse. The patients’ mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, and 84% had clear cell histology.

Patients were randomized (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo, 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo, or 3 years of sorafenib.

The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, but it was amended to 400 mg daily.

The primary outcome was investigator-reported disease-free survival comparing 3 years of sorafenib with placebo.
 

No survival benefit, more adverse events

Survival outcomes were similar across the study arms. The median disease-free survival was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for 3 years of placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.23; P = .946).

The restricted mean survival time over 10 years was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for 3 years of placebo (P = .988).

As for overall survival, the hazard ratio for 3 years of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.82-1.38; P = .638), and the hazard ratio for 1 year of sorafenib versus 3 years of placebo was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.71-1.20; P = .541).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 58.6% of patients receiving 1 year of sorafenib, 63.9% of patients receiving 3 years of sorafenib, and 29.2% of patients receiving placebo. Serious adverse events were reported at rates of 19.1% for placebo, 21.6% for 1 year of sorafenib, and 24% for 3 years of sorafenib.

Despite being offered treatment adaptations, more than half of participants had stopped treatment by 12 months because of toxicity.
 

Results undermine TKI use

“The significant toxicity observed with TKI monotherapy, despite pragmatic dose reductions, together with lack of evidence of a survival benefit, fundamentally undermines the use of TKIs in the adjuvant treatment of RCC,” Dr. Eisen and colleagues concluded.

In an interview, Dr. Eisen noted: “We are now asking whether adjuvant PD-1/PD-L1, with or without CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors, are of benefit for patients who have had a high- or intermediate-risk RCC resected. A more challenging question is whether neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors may add further benefit. There are many such studies, which will report over the next few years and have the potential to change the treatment landscape enormously.”

“Interest in the field in general has shifted to immunotherapy and immunotherapy/TKI combinations,” observed Ramaprasad Srinivasan, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in this study.

“The majority in the field probably had a fairly good idea that sorafenib was unlikely to show any benefit, whether given over 1 or 3 years. SORCE results were not unexpected. They do cement our belief that TKIs such as sorafenib do not have a real role in managing patients with kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The SORCE trial was supported by Bayer, Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, University College London, Cancer Australia, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Eisen disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Roche, EUSA, Bayer, Pfizer, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Kidney Cancer UK. His coauthors disclosed relationships with many companies. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed that the National Cancer Institute has received funds from Calithera Biosciences and Peloton/Merck for clinical trials on which he was the principal investigator.

SOURCE: Eisen T et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01800.

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: Occupational burnout is more prevalent among physicians than among the general population, and physician burnout is associated with several negative clinical outcomes. However, little is known about the economic cost of this widespread issue.

Dr. Suojanen is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth has been steadily gaining mainstream use throughout the last decade, but the practice was recently shoved, almost overnight, into the forefront of the health care profession. Telehealth is now used more frequently by medical groups and physicians than ever before. General reports before the COVID-19 pandemic approximated 90% of health care organizations used or planned to use telehealth in the future. This future may already be a reality, with a McKinsey & Company report estimating that physicians saw 50-175 times more patients over telehealth platforms since the pandemic’s start.¹

In general, telehealth includes use of electronic communication and information technologies to deliver long-distance or remote health care. A physician’s use of telemedicine (clinical services) is one of the most common uses, but the industry also includes other professionals, such as pharmacists and nurses.

• Increased access to health care.
• Increased access to medical specialists in small and rural communities.
• Improved long-term care from the comfort of patients’ homes.
• Improved platforms to document patient care outside regular business hours.

But along with these benefits, telehealth carries the disadvantage of potential increased liability. This increased liability could stem from:

• Breached standards of care.
• Inadequate or improper licensing.
• Limited care options.
• Decision making without a proper physical exam.
• Increased informed consent requirements.
• Restricted prescription access.

Before expanding any practice into telemedicine, awareness of potential legal issues is crucial.

Standard of care

Currently, telehealth laws and regulations vary significantly from state to state. But one rule is consistent across the board – that the standard of care for practicing medicine through telemedicine is identical to the standard of care required for practicing medicine during physical practice. It still requires the appropriate examination, testing, labs, imaging, and consultations that any in-person diagnosis needs. For physicians, it also includes supervising nonphysician clinicians, where state law requires supervision.

The American Telemedicine Association currently determines the primary governing standards and guidelines for telemedicine. These can help physicians understand best practices in meeting the standard of care through telemedicine. The American Gastroenterological Association provides coding guidelines and other resources to help physicians with telehealth and e-visits. Other professional societies, such as the American College of Radiology and the American Academy of Dermatology, offer guidelines specific to their medical specialties’ standards of care. These standards still vary from state to state, so medical professionals must be aware of any differences before treating patients in multiple states.
 

Licensing

Licensing is one of telemedicine’s most confusing legal issues. All states require a license to practice medicine (traditional or telehealth) within their borders. Without that license, practicing medicine in the state is a crime. On top of being criminal, unlicensed practice can affect insurance, liability, billing, and malpractice coverage. When in a brick-and-mortar clinic, a physician’s confidence in practicing within the licensed jurisdiction is easy. Now, the distinction is not so clear. Patients and physicians no longer have to be in the same room, city, or even state, meaning there could be unknown conflicting laws between the two locations. With rare exceptions, standards of care are based on the patient’s location, not the physician’s location. This increases the risk of practicing without being correctly licensed to higher than ever.

Because licensing is a significant roadblock in providing telemedicine, efforts are underway to make the process simpler and more streamlined. The Federation of State Medical Boards developed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC).² This can qualify physicians to practice medicine across state lines within the compact so long as they meet specific eligibility requirements. The IMLC creates a fast-track option for physicians to fill out one application and receive licenses from multiple states at once. Currently, the compact includes 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.³

Informed consent

Telemedicine health care still requires informed consent from patients. In fact, in some states, the requirements for care provided through telehealth are actually stricter than requirements for informed consent obtained in person.

Most informed consent laws require physicians to cover the risks and benefits of a recommended course of treatment and all feasible and reasonable material alternatives. On top of this traditional informed consent, physicians must get additional consent to receive care over a telehealth platform. This unique requirement explains what telehealth is, possible risks and expected benefits, and security measures used to protect patient information. States vary regarding when verbal consent is sufficient, and when written consent is required.
 

Prescriptions

Telemedicine is still a relatively new industry, and few legal opinions specifically address telemedicine malpractice. However, prescribing medication based on telemedicine information is among the few issues the courts have addressed. A 2008 decision found that a physician review of patient questionnaires submitted over the Internet was insufficient to prescribe medication without a physical examination determining patient health.⁴ This cautious approach stemmed from telehealth’s early concern about the absence of patient-physician relationships and potential online pharmacy abuse. Since this decision, many states require an “in-person” visit with a patient before prescribing medication. The definition of what qualifies as an in-person visit varies from state to state – some still consider the use of real-time, audiovisual conferencing sufficient.

The law is still evolving for prescriptions. Some states don’t allow any prescriptions, while others allow physicians to prescribe their patients’ medications as part of an appropriate treatment plan according to their professional discretion. Almost every state prohibits the prescription of controlled substances based on telemedicine.
 

Conclusion

Telemedicine is becoming an increasingly significant part of both physician-patient relationships and the broader health care industry. Used appropriately, it can be an incredibly effective method of care for physicians and patients. Physicians should learn the laws governing telemedicine in every state they want to practice and continue to stay current on any changes. The Center for Connected Health Policy offers a report, updated semiannually, to help physicians stay up to date on their state laws. These efforts will help prevent physicians from exposure to liability and medical malpractice claims.

Mr. Hyde is a partner at Younker Hyde Macfarlane, a law firm that focuses on prosecuting medical malpractice claims on behalf of injured patients. Ms. Johnson is an associate attorney with the firm. You can find them at YHMLaw.com.

References

1. Bestsennyy O, Harris A, Rost J. Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality? Mckinsey & Company, May 29, 2020.

2. FSMB: Draft Interstate Compact for Physician Licensure Nears Completion, 2014.

3. Interstate Medical Licensure Compact: U.S. State Participation in the Compact.

4. See, Low Cost Pharm., Inc. v. Ariz. State Bd. Of Pharm, 2008 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 790, referencing conclusion of Arizona Medical Board.

Telehealth has been steadily gaining mainstream use throughout the last decade, but the practice was recently shoved, almost overnight, into the forefront of the health care profession. Telehealth is now used more frequently by medical groups and physicians than ever before. General reports before the COVID-19 pandemic approximated 90% of health care organizations used or planned to use telehealth in the future. This future may already be a reality, with a McKinsey & Company report estimating that physicians saw 50-175 times more patients over telehealth platforms since the pandemic’s start.¹

In general, telehealth includes use of electronic communication and information technologies to deliver long-distance or remote health care. A physician’s use of telemedicine (clinical services) is one of the most common uses, but the industry also includes other professionals, such as pharmacists and nurses.

• Increased access to health care.
• Increased access to medical specialists in small and rural communities.
• Improved long-term care from the comfort of patients’ homes.
• Improved platforms to document patient care outside regular business hours.

But along with these benefits, telehealth carries the disadvantage of potential increased liability. This increased liability could stem from:

• Breached standards of care.
• Inadequate or improper licensing.
• Limited care options.
• Decision making without a proper physical exam.
• Increased informed consent requirements.
• Restricted prescription access.

Before expanding any practice into telemedicine, awareness of potential legal issues is crucial.

Standard of care

Currently, telehealth laws and regulations vary significantly from state to state. But one rule is consistent across the board – that the standard of care for practicing medicine through telemedicine is identical to the standard of care required for practicing medicine during physical practice. It still requires the appropriate examination, testing, labs, imaging, and consultations that any in-person diagnosis needs. For physicians, it also includes supervising nonphysician clinicians, where state law requires supervision.

The American Telemedicine Association currently determines the primary governing standards and guidelines for telemedicine. These can help physicians understand best practices in meeting the standard of care through telemedicine. The American Gastroenterological Association provides coding guidelines and other resources to help physicians with telehealth and e-visits. Other professional societies, such as the American College of Radiology and the American Academy of Dermatology, offer guidelines specific to their medical specialties’ standards of care. These standards still vary from state to state, so medical professionals must be aware of any differences before treating patients in multiple states.
 

Licensing

Licensing is one of telemedicine’s most confusing legal issues. All states require a license to practice medicine (traditional or telehealth) within their borders. Without that license, practicing medicine in the state is a crime. On top of being criminal, unlicensed practice can affect insurance, liability, billing, and malpractice coverage. When in a brick-and-mortar clinic, a physician’s confidence in practicing within the licensed jurisdiction is easy. Now, the distinction is not so clear. Patients and physicians no longer have to be in the same room, city, or even state, meaning there could be unknown conflicting laws between the two locations. With rare exceptions, standards of care are based on the patient’s location, not the physician’s location. This increases the risk of practicing without being correctly licensed to higher than ever.

Because licensing is a significant roadblock in providing telemedicine, efforts are underway to make the process simpler and more streamlined. The Federation of State Medical Boards developed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC).² This can qualify physicians to practice medicine across state lines within the compact so long as they meet specific eligibility requirements. The IMLC creates a fast-track option for physicians to fill out one application and receive licenses from multiple states at once. Currently, the compact includes 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.³

Informed consent

Telemedicine health care still requires informed consent from patients. In fact, in some states, the requirements for care provided through telehealth are actually stricter than requirements for informed consent obtained in person.

Most informed consent laws require physicians to cover the risks and benefits of a recommended course of treatment and all feasible and reasonable material alternatives. On top of this traditional informed consent, physicians must get additional consent to receive care over a telehealth platform. This unique requirement explains what telehealth is, possible risks and expected benefits, and security measures used to protect patient information. States vary regarding when verbal consent is sufficient, and when written consent is required.
 

Prescriptions

Telemedicine is still a relatively new industry, and few legal opinions specifically address telemedicine malpractice. However, prescribing medication based on telemedicine information is among the few issues the courts have addressed. A 2008 decision found that a physician review of patient questionnaires submitted over the Internet was insufficient to prescribe medication without a physical examination determining patient health.⁴ This cautious approach stemmed from telehealth’s early concern about the absence of patient-physician relationships and potential online pharmacy abuse. Since this decision, many states require an “in-person” visit with a patient before prescribing medication. The definition of what qualifies as an in-person visit varies from state to state – some still consider the use of real-time, audiovisual conferencing sufficient.

The law is still evolving for prescriptions. Some states don’t allow any prescriptions, while others allow physicians to prescribe their patients’ medications as part of an appropriate treatment plan according to their professional discretion. Almost every state prohibits the prescription of controlled substances based on telemedicine.
 

Conclusion

Telemedicine is becoming an increasingly significant part of both physician-patient relationships and the broader health care industry. Used appropriately, it can be an incredibly effective method of care for physicians and patients. Physicians should learn the laws governing telemedicine in every state they want to practice and continue to stay current on any changes. The Center for Connected Health Policy offers a report, updated semiannually, to help physicians stay up to date on their state laws. These efforts will help prevent physicians from exposure to liability and medical malpractice claims.

Mr. Hyde is a partner at Younker Hyde Macfarlane, a law firm that focuses on prosecuting medical malpractice claims on behalf of injured patients. Ms. Johnson is an associate attorney with the firm. You can find them at YHMLaw.com.

References

1. Bestsennyy O, Harris A, Rost J. Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality? Mckinsey & Company, May 29, 2020.

2. FSMB: Draft Interstate Compact for Physician Licensure Nears Completion, 2014.

3. Interstate Medical Licensure Compact: U.S. State Participation in the Compact.

4. See, Low Cost Pharm., Inc. v. Ariz. State Bd. Of Pharm, 2008 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 790, referencing conclusion of Arizona Medical Board.

Telehealth has been steadily gaining mainstream use throughout the last decade, but the practice was recently shoved, almost overnight, into the forefront of the health care profession. Telehealth is now used more frequently by medical groups and physicians than ever before. General reports before the COVID-19 pandemic approximated 90% of health care organizations used or planned to use telehealth in the future. This future may already be a reality, with a McKinsey & Company report estimating that physicians saw 50-175 times more patients over telehealth platforms since the pandemic’s start.¹

In general, telehealth includes use of electronic communication and information technologies to deliver long-distance or remote health care. A physician’s use of telemedicine (clinical services) is one of the most common uses, but the industry also includes other professionals, such as pharmacists and nurses.

• Increased access to health care.
• Increased access to medical specialists in small and rural communities.
• Improved long-term care from the comfort of patients’ homes.
• Improved platforms to document patient care outside regular business hours.

But along with these benefits, telehealth carries the disadvantage of potential increased liability. This increased liability could stem from:

• Breached standards of care.
• Inadequate or improper licensing.
• Limited care options.
• Decision making without a proper physical exam.
• Increased informed consent requirements.
• Restricted prescription access.

Before expanding any practice into telemedicine, awareness of potential legal issues is crucial.

Standard of care

Currently, telehealth laws and regulations vary significantly from state to state. But one rule is consistent across the board – that the standard of care for practicing medicine through telemedicine is identical to the standard of care required for practicing medicine during physical practice. It still requires the appropriate examination, testing, labs, imaging, and consultations that any in-person diagnosis needs. For physicians, it also includes supervising nonphysician clinicians, where state law requires supervision.

The American Telemedicine Association currently determines the primary governing standards and guidelines for telemedicine. These can help physicians understand best practices in meeting the standard of care through telemedicine. The American Gastroenterological Association provides coding guidelines and other resources to help physicians with telehealth and e-visits. Other professional societies, such as the American College of Radiology and the American Academy of Dermatology, offer guidelines specific to their medical specialties’ standards of care. These standards still vary from state to state, so medical professionals must be aware of any differences before treating patients in multiple states.
 

Licensing

Licensing is one of telemedicine’s most confusing legal issues. All states require a license to practice medicine (traditional or telehealth) within their borders. Without that license, practicing medicine in the state is a crime. On top of being criminal, unlicensed practice can affect insurance, liability, billing, and malpractice coverage. When in a brick-and-mortar clinic, a physician’s confidence in practicing within the licensed jurisdiction is easy. Now, the distinction is not so clear. Patients and physicians no longer have to be in the same room, city, or even state, meaning there could be unknown conflicting laws between the two locations. With rare exceptions, standards of care are based on the patient’s location, not the physician’s location. This increases the risk of practicing without being correctly licensed to higher than ever.

Because licensing is a significant roadblock in providing telemedicine, efforts are underway to make the process simpler and more streamlined. The Federation of State Medical Boards developed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC).² This can qualify physicians to practice medicine across state lines within the compact so long as they meet specific eligibility requirements. The IMLC creates a fast-track option for physicians to fill out one application and receive licenses from multiple states at once. Currently, the compact includes 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.³

Informed consent

Telemedicine health care still requires informed consent from patients. In fact, in some states, the requirements for care provided through telehealth are actually stricter than requirements for informed consent obtained in person.

Most informed consent laws require physicians to cover the risks and benefits of a recommended course of treatment and all feasible and reasonable material alternatives. On top of this traditional informed consent, physicians must get additional consent to receive care over a telehealth platform. This unique requirement explains what telehealth is, possible risks and expected benefits, and security measures used to protect patient information. States vary regarding when verbal consent is sufficient, and when written consent is required.
 

Prescriptions

Telemedicine is still a relatively new industry, and few legal opinions specifically address telemedicine malpractice. However, prescribing medication based on telemedicine information is among the few issues the courts have addressed. A 2008 decision found that a physician review of patient questionnaires submitted over the Internet was insufficient to prescribe medication without a physical examination determining patient health.⁴ This cautious approach stemmed from telehealth’s early concern about the absence of patient-physician relationships and potential online pharmacy abuse. Since this decision, many states require an “in-person” visit with a patient before prescribing medication. The definition of what qualifies as an in-person visit varies from state to state – some still consider the use of real-time, audiovisual conferencing sufficient.

The law is still evolving for prescriptions. Some states don’t allow any prescriptions, while others allow physicians to prescribe their patients’ medications as part of an appropriate treatment plan according to their professional discretion. Almost every state prohibits the prescription of controlled substances based on telemedicine.
 

Conclusion

Telemedicine is becoming an increasingly significant part of both physician-patient relationships and the broader health care industry. Used appropriately, it can be an incredibly effective method of care for physicians and patients. Physicians should learn the laws governing telemedicine in every state they want to practice and continue to stay current on any changes. The Center for Connected Health Policy offers a report, updated semiannually, to help physicians stay up to date on their state laws. These efforts will help prevent physicians from exposure to liability and medical malpractice claims.

Mr. Hyde is a partner at Younker Hyde Macfarlane, a law firm that focuses on prosecuting medical malpractice claims on behalf of injured patients. Ms. Johnson is an associate attorney with the firm. You can find them at YHMLaw.com.

References

1. Bestsennyy O, Harris A, Rost J. Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality? Mckinsey & Company, May 29, 2020.

2. FSMB: Draft Interstate Compact for Physician Licensure Nears Completion, 2014.

3. Interstate Medical Licensure Compact: U.S. State Participation in the Compact.

4. See, Low Cost Pharm., Inc. v. Ariz. State Bd. Of Pharm, 2008 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 790, referencing conclusion of Arizona Medical Board.

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The choice of the secretary general of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery to open with this quote was the first hint that the next presentation at the 2019 annual meeting would be anything but dull. The session chair followed with a reminder to keep the discussion polite and civil.

Presenter David Taggart, MD, PhD, did not disappoint. The professor of cardiovascular surgery at the University of Oxford (England) began with the announcement that he had withdrawn his name from a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. He then proceeded to accuse his coinvestigators of misrepresenting the findings of a major clinical trial.

Dr. Taggart was chair of the surgical committee for the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which compared two procedures for patients who had blockages in their left main coronary artery: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using coronary stents, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The investigators designed the trial to compare outcomes for the two treatments using a composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI. The 3-year follow-up data had been published in NEJM without controversy – or, at least, without public controversy.

But when it came time to publish the 5-year follow-up, there was a significantly higher rate of death in the stent group, and both Dr. Taggart and the journal editors were concerned that this finding was being downplayed in the manuscript.

In their comments to the authors, the journal editors had recommended including the mortality difference (unless clearly trivial) ‘”in the concluding statement in the final paragraph.” Yet, the concluding statement of the published paper read that there “was no significant difference between PCI and CABG.”

In Dr. Taggart’s view, that claim was dangerous for patients, and so he was left with no choice but to remove himself as an author, a first for the academic with over 300 scientific papers to his name.

Earlier publications from the EXCEL trial had influenced European treatment guidelines. But subsequent allegations of misconduct and hidden data spurred the EACTS to repudiate those guidelines out of concern “that some results in the EXCEL trial appear to have been concealed and that some patients may therefore have received the wrong clinical advice.”

The controversy pitted cardiothoracic surgeons against interventional cardiologists, who were seen as increasingly encroaching on the surgeons’ turf. Dr. Taggart was a long-time critic of the subspecialty.

Surgeons demanded an independent analysis of the EXCEL trial data – a demand that the investigators have yet to satisfy. Dr. Taggart was the first to speak publicly, but others had major reservations about the trial reporting and conduct years earlier.
 

Mortality data held back

One such person was Lars Wallentin, MD, a professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, who chaired the independent committee that monitored the safety and scientific validity of the EXCEL trial.

The committee, known as the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB), received a report on March 23, 2016, that showed that increasingly more patients who had received stents were dying, compared with the group of patients that had undergone CABG. A graph of the survival curves showed the gap between the two groups widening after 3 years (Figure 1).

By September of that year, Dr. Wallentin and other members of the DSMB were anxious to share the concerning mortality difference with the broader medical community.

They were aware that EACTS and the European Society of Cardiology had started the process of updating their guidelines on myocardial revascularization, and were keen for the guideline writing committee to see all of the data.

Meanwhile, the trial investigators, led by principal investigator Gregg Stone, MD, then at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, were preparing to publish a report of the 3-year outcomes. Recruitment for EXCEL started in September 2010, so at the time of the 3-year analysis in 2016, some patients had been followed up for over 5 years. But the data, published in NEJM in October 2016, were capped at 3 years (Figure 2). It didn’t show the widening gap in late mortality that Dr. Wallentin and the rest of the DSMB had seen.

When asked about this, the investigators said they were transparent about their plans to cap the data at 3 years in an amendment to the study protocol. Stone’s coprincipal investigators were interventional cardiologist Patrick Serruys, MD, then of Imperial College London; and two surgeons: Joseph Sabik, MD, then of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, then at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam. The four principal investigators all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions.

Study sponsor Abbott has distanced itself from the decisions made and has referred all questions about the trial to the EXCEL investigators. Charles Simonton, chief medical officer at Abbott (now at Abiomed) was a coauthor on both the 3- and 5-year papers. Dr. Wallentin believes that the sponsor must have been aware of the DSMB’s concerns.
 

Continuing DSMB concerns

A year later, the DSMB was still troubled. Dr. Wallentin emailed Dr. Stone in September 2017 asking for an updated analysis of the mortality data without any capping in time.

Dr. Wallentin added that he didn’t think that unblinding the mortality results would be an issue at that stage because these were late deaths in a trial where the interventions were long completed. But, he warned, “it might be very concerning if, in the future, suspicions were raised that already available information on mortality was withheld from the cardiology and thoracic surgery community.”

The investigators took a month to respond. They declined the request, saying that the trial was not statistically powered to measure mortality. In his email to Dr. Wallentin, Dr. Stone stressed that they were committed to complete disclosure of all of the EXCEL data and that the responsible time point to unblind was after 4 years. His coprincipal investigators (Dr. Serruys, Dr. Sabik, and Dr. Kappetein) as well as EXCEL statistical committee chair Stuart Pocock, PhD, and Mr. Simonton were all copied on the email.

Dr. Wallentin deferred to the principal investigators’ arguments.
 

Missing MI data

Death was not the only outcome of the EXCEL trial to draw scrutiny.

The EXCEL investigators used a unique definition of MI that was almost exclusively based on a rise in the cardiac biomarker CK-MB. This protocol definition of MI was later adapted into the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition in a paper coauthored by Dr. Stone. The investigators agreed to also measure MIs that met the more commonly used Third Universal Definition as a secondary endpoint. The Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction uses a change in biomarkers – preferably troponin or alternatively CK-MB – coupled with other clinical signs.

It is standard practice to report secondary endpoints in any analysis of the main findings of a study. Yet, the EXCEL investigators did not report the universal definition of MI in either the 3-year or 5-year publications.

This is critical because MI according to one definition may not count according to the other, and the final tally could tip the trial results positive, negative, or neutral for coronary stents.

In Dr. Taggart’s opinion, the protocol definition puts CABG at a disadvantage because it uses the same biomarker threshold for procedural-related MI for both PCI and CABG. Because surgery involves more manipulation of the heart, cardiac enzyme levels will naturally be higher after CABG than PCI. These procedure-related enzyme elevations are not “true clinical MIs,” according to Dr. Taggart and others.

Late last year, a dataset containing the 3-year follow-up of EXCEL, including the information on the universal definition of MI, was leaked to the BBC. Working with biostatisticians, the BBC confirmed that according to this definition, there were more MIs in the stent group.

Originally, the investigators disputed the finding, calling the BBC data “imaginary.” They claimed that they were unable to calculate a rate of MI according to the universal definition because they lacked routine collection of troponins, although the universal definition also allows use of CK-MB. They have since published an analysis of 5-year MI data according to the universal definition, which showed twice the rate of MI in the PCI group.

From the leaked data, the BBC calculated the main composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI using the universal definition of MI. Now the results swung in favor of CABG.
 

Impact on guidelines

None of this was known at the time the European cardiology societies convened a committee to write their new guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The writing panel disagreed about whether PCI and CABG were equivalent for patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD).

Besides EXCEL, another study, the NOBLE trial, compared PCI and CABG in left main CAD and came to opposite conclusions – conclusions that matched the leaked data. In that trial, European investigators chose a slightly different primary endpoint: a composite of death, MI, stroke, and the need for a repeat procedure. They used the universal definition of MI exclusively, and notably, they omitted procedural MI from their clinical event count. The results, published at the same time as the EXCEL 3-year findings, suggested that CABG was better.

Given the discrepant findings of two large trials, the guideline committee considered all of the available data comparing the two methods of revascularization for left main CAD. But even then, things weren’t clear-cut. One draft meta-analysis, supported by the National Institute for Health Research, suggested that results were worse for first- and second-generation drug-eluting coronary stents – including those used in EXCEL – compared with surgery.

Another meta-analysis, later published in The Lancet, drew a different conclusion and found that PCI was just as good as surgery. The main author, Stuart Head, a cardiothoracic surgeon on the ESC/EACTS guideline committee, was a research fellow with EXCEL investigator Dr. Kappetein at Erasmus. EXCEL investigators Dr. Stone, Dr. Kappetein, and Dr. Serruys were coauthors of the Lancet meta-analysis.

There was heated discussion about the committee’s draft recommendations, which gave both CABG and PCI a Class IA recommendation in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In October 2017, the ESC commissioned an anonymous external reviewer to weigh in. James Brophy, MD, PhD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine and epidemiology at McGill University, Montreal, confirmed that he was the reviewer after he published an updated version in June 2020.

Looking at all of the data available at the time comparing the procedures for left main CAD, Dr. Brophy’s analysis suggested a 73% chance that the excess in death, stroke, or MI represents at least two excess events per 100 patients treated with PCI rather than CABG.

Dr. Brophy thought that most patients would find these differences clinically meaningful and advised against giving both procedures the same class of recommendation. He was also concerned that many readers will skip to the summary recommendation table without reading the entire guideline document.

“I feel this is misleading in its present form,” he wrote in 2017.

Despite Dr. Brophy’s review, the guideline committee stuck with its original recommendations. The final 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization gave equal weight to both CABG and PCI in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In contrast, US guidelines do not put PCI and CABG on the same footing for any group of patients with left main CAD.

The lead author of the ESC/EACTS guidelines section on left main disease, and around a third of those on the writing task force, all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions. The EXCEL principal investigator, Dr. Kappetein, was secretary general of EACTS and oversaw the guidelines process for the surgical organization. He left to work for Medtronic midway through the process and was later joined there by his former research fellow, Stuart Head.

Dr. Brophy said in an interview that given the final guideline recommendations, he assumed that the committee had other reviews and went with the majority opinion.

But not everyone involved in the guidelines saw Dr. Brophy’s review. Nick Freemantle, a statistical reviewer appointed by EACTS, expected to see it but didn’t. This omission calls into question the neutrality of the whole process, in his view.

Mr. Freemantle believes that the deck was stacked so that he only saw the pieces of evidence that supported the conclusions that were already decided and that he was not shown “the bits that don’t fit that neatly.”

“And without that narrative, it all feels a bit grubby, to be honest,” he said.

Professor Barbara Casadei, ESC president, disputed this, saying that the guidelines were approved by all surgical members, including the EACTS council.

Missing from Dr. Brophy’s review were the later data from EXCEL. As he had told the DSMB in 2017, Stone presented the 4-year data from EXCEL at the TCT conference in September 2018. At this point, the analysis showed that 10.3% of people had died after PCI and 7.4% after CABG.

But this presentation was not given much prominence at the conference, which Dr. Stone organized, and occurred during a didactic session in a small room rather than on one of the main stages where the 3-year data from EXCEL were announced with much fanfare. The presentation also took place 3 weeks after the European guidelines were published.
 

Surgeons withdraw support

After the BBC report last year that the universal definition of MI data had been collected but not published in the 3-year follow-up manuscript, and showed more MI in the PCI group than the protocol definition, the EACTS withdrew its support for the guidelines. The ESC continued to uphold the guidelines «until there is robust scientific evidence (as opposed to allegations) indicating we should do otherwise,” said Ms. Casadei.

A spokesperson for NEJM said the journal stood by the EXCEL papers because “there is no credible harm to patients from the publication of the paper and accurate reporting of trial results.” NEJM has since conducted a review and published a series of letters in response. The letters have reinvigorated rather than appeased the dissenters, as reported by Medscape.

A number of cardiologists and researchers started a petition on change.org to revise the EACTS/ESC left main CAD guidelines, and surgical societies across the globe have written to the editor of NEJM asking him to retract or amend the EXCEL papers.

This has not happened. The journal’s editor maintains that the letters containing the analyses are “sufficient information” to allow readers and guideline authors to “evaluate the trial findings.”

Dr. Taggart was dismissive of that response. “There is still no recognition or acknowledgment that failure to publish these data in 2016 ‘misled’ the guideline writers for the ESC/EACTS guidelines, and there is still no formal correction of the 2016 and 2019 NEJM manuscripts.”

Over a year after the BBC received the leaked data, the EXCEL investigators published an analysis of the primary outcome using the universal definition of MI data in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It shows 141 events in the PCI arm, compared with 102 in the CABG arm. The investigators acknowledge that the rates of procedural MI differ depending on the definition used. According to their analysis, the protocol definition was predictive of mortality after both treatments, whereas the universal definition of procedural MI was predictive of mortality only after CABG. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and an accompanying editorial questioned these conclusions.

For Dr. Wallentin, it’s a relief that these data are in the public domain so that their interpretation and clinical consequences can be “openly discussed.” He hoped that the whole experience will result in something constructive and useful for the future.

As for the guidelines, the tide may be turning.

In a joint statement with EACTS on Oct. 6, 2020, the ESC agreed to review its guidelines for left main disease in the light of emerging, longer-term outcome data from the trials of CABG versus PCI.

Dr. Taggart has no regrets about speaking out despite this being “an exceedingly painful and bruising experience.”

The saga, he said, “reflects very badly on our specialty, the investigators, industry, and the world’s ‘leading’ medical journal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The choice of the secretary general of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery to open with this quote was the first hint that the next presentation at the 2019 annual meeting would be anything but dull. The session chair followed with a reminder to keep the discussion polite and civil.

Presenter David Taggart, MD, PhD, did not disappoint. The professor of cardiovascular surgery at the University of Oxford (England) began with the announcement that he had withdrawn his name from a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. He then proceeded to accuse his coinvestigators of misrepresenting the findings of a major clinical trial.

Dr. Taggart was chair of the surgical committee for the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which compared two procedures for patients who had blockages in their left main coronary artery: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using coronary stents, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The investigators designed the trial to compare outcomes for the two treatments using a composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI. The 3-year follow-up data had been published in NEJM without controversy – or, at least, without public controversy.

But when it came time to publish the 5-year follow-up, there was a significantly higher rate of death in the stent group, and both Dr. Taggart and the journal editors were concerned that this finding was being downplayed in the manuscript.

In their comments to the authors, the journal editors had recommended including the mortality difference (unless clearly trivial) ‘”in the concluding statement in the final paragraph.” Yet, the concluding statement of the published paper read that there “was no significant difference between PCI and CABG.”

In Dr. Taggart’s view, that claim was dangerous for patients, and so he was left with no choice but to remove himself as an author, a first for the academic with over 300 scientific papers to his name.

Earlier publications from the EXCEL trial had influenced European treatment guidelines. But subsequent allegations of misconduct and hidden data spurred the EACTS to repudiate those guidelines out of concern “that some results in the EXCEL trial appear to have been concealed and that some patients may therefore have received the wrong clinical advice.”

The controversy pitted cardiothoracic surgeons against interventional cardiologists, who were seen as increasingly encroaching on the surgeons’ turf. Dr. Taggart was a long-time critic of the subspecialty.

Surgeons demanded an independent analysis of the EXCEL trial data – a demand that the investigators have yet to satisfy. Dr. Taggart was the first to speak publicly, but others had major reservations about the trial reporting and conduct years earlier.
 

Mortality data held back

One such person was Lars Wallentin, MD, a professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, who chaired the independent committee that monitored the safety and scientific validity of the EXCEL trial.

The committee, known as the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB), received a report on March 23, 2016, that showed that increasingly more patients who had received stents were dying, compared with the group of patients that had undergone CABG. A graph of the survival curves showed the gap between the two groups widening after 3 years (Figure 1).

By September of that year, Dr. Wallentin and other members of the DSMB were anxious to share the concerning mortality difference with the broader medical community.

They were aware that EACTS and the European Society of Cardiology had started the process of updating their guidelines on myocardial revascularization, and were keen for the guideline writing committee to see all of the data.

Meanwhile, the trial investigators, led by principal investigator Gregg Stone, MD, then at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, were preparing to publish a report of the 3-year outcomes. Recruitment for EXCEL started in September 2010, so at the time of the 3-year analysis in 2016, some patients had been followed up for over 5 years. But the data, published in NEJM in October 2016, were capped at 3 years (Figure 2). It didn’t show the widening gap in late mortality that Dr. Wallentin and the rest of the DSMB had seen.

When asked about this, the investigators said they were transparent about their plans to cap the data at 3 years in an amendment to the study protocol. Stone’s coprincipal investigators were interventional cardiologist Patrick Serruys, MD, then of Imperial College London; and two surgeons: Joseph Sabik, MD, then of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, then at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam. The four principal investigators all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions.

Study sponsor Abbott has distanced itself from the decisions made and has referred all questions about the trial to the EXCEL investigators. Charles Simonton, chief medical officer at Abbott (now at Abiomed) was a coauthor on both the 3- and 5-year papers. Dr. Wallentin believes that the sponsor must have been aware of the DSMB’s concerns.
 

Continuing DSMB concerns

A year later, the DSMB was still troubled. Dr. Wallentin emailed Dr. Stone in September 2017 asking for an updated analysis of the mortality data without any capping in time.

Dr. Wallentin added that he didn’t think that unblinding the mortality results would be an issue at that stage because these were late deaths in a trial where the interventions were long completed. But, he warned, “it might be very concerning if, in the future, suspicions were raised that already available information on mortality was withheld from the cardiology and thoracic surgery community.”

The investigators took a month to respond. They declined the request, saying that the trial was not statistically powered to measure mortality. In his email to Dr. Wallentin, Dr. Stone stressed that they were committed to complete disclosure of all of the EXCEL data and that the responsible time point to unblind was after 4 years. His coprincipal investigators (Dr. Serruys, Dr. Sabik, and Dr. Kappetein) as well as EXCEL statistical committee chair Stuart Pocock, PhD, and Mr. Simonton were all copied on the email.

Dr. Wallentin deferred to the principal investigators’ arguments.
 

Missing MI data

Death was not the only outcome of the EXCEL trial to draw scrutiny.

The EXCEL investigators used a unique definition of MI that was almost exclusively based on a rise in the cardiac biomarker CK-MB. This protocol definition of MI was later adapted into the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition in a paper coauthored by Dr. Stone. The investigators agreed to also measure MIs that met the more commonly used Third Universal Definition as a secondary endpoint. The Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction uses a change in biomarkers – preferably troponin or alternatively CK-MB – coupled with other clinical signs.

It is standard practice to report secondary endpoints in any analysis of the main findings of a study. Yet, the EXCEL investigators did not report the universal definition of MI in either the 3-year or 5-year publications.

This is critical because MI according to one definition may not count according to the other, and the final tally could tip the trial results positive, negative, or neutral for coronary stents.

In Dr. Taggart’s opinion, the protocol definition puts CABG at a disadvantage because it uses the same biomarker threshold for procedural-related MI for both PCI and CABG. Because surgery involves more manipulation of the heart, cardiac enzyme levels will naturally be higher after CABG than PCI. These procedure-related enzyme elevations are not “true clinical MIs,” according to Dr. Taggart and others.

Late last year, a dataset containing the 3-year follow-up of EXCEL, including the information on the universal definition of MI, was leaked to the BBC. Working with biostatisticians, the BBC confirmed that according to this definition, there were more MIs in the stent group.

Originally, the investigators disputed the finding, calling the BBC data “imaginary.” They claimed that they were unable to calculate a rate of MI according to the universal definition because they lacked routine collection of troponins, although the universal definition also allows use of CK-MB. They have since published an analysis of 5-year MI data according to the universal definition, which showed twice the rate of MI in the PCI group.

From the leaked data, the BBC calculated the main composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI using the universal definition of MI. Now the results swung in favor of CABG.
 

Impact on guidelines

None of this was known at the time the European cardiology societies convened a committee to write their new guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The writing panel disagreed about whether PCI and CABG were equivalent for patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD).

Besides EXCEL, another study, the NOBLE trial, compared PCI and CABG in left main CAD and came to opposite conclusions – conclusions that matched the leaked data. In that trial, European investigators chose a slightly different primary endpoint: a composite of death, MI, stroke, and the need for a repeat procedure. They used the universal definition of MI exclusively, and notably, they omitted procedural MI from their clinical event count. The results, published at the same time as the EXCEL 3-year findings, suggested that CABG was better.

Given the discrepant findings of two large trials, the guideline committee considered all of the available data comparing the two methods of revascularization for left main CAD. But even then, things weren’t clear-cut. One draft meta-analysis, supported by the National Institute for Health Research, suggested that results were worse for first- and second-generation drug-eluting coronary stents – including those used in EXCEL – compared with surgery.

Another meta-analysis, later published in The Lancet, drew a different conclusion and found that PCI was just as good as surgery. The main author, Stuart Head, a cardiothoracic surgeon on the ESC/EACTS guideline committee, was a research fellow with EXCEL investigator Dr. Kappetein at Erasmus. EXCEL investigators Dr. Stone, Dr. Kappetein, and Dr. Serruys were coauthors of the Lancet meta-analysis.

There was heated discussion about the committee’s draft recommendations, which gave both CABG and PCI a Class IA recommendation in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In October 2017, the ESC commissioned an anonymous external reviewer to weigh in. James Brophy, MD, PhD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine and epidemiology at McGill University, Montreal, confirmed that he was the reviewer after he published an updated version in June 2020.

Looking at all of the data available at the time comparing the procedures for left main CAD, Dr. Brophy’s analysis suggested a 73% chance that the excess in death, stroke, or MI represents at least two excess events per 100 patients treated with PCI rather than CABG.

Dr. Brophy thought that most patients would find these differences clinically meaningful and advised against giving both procedures the same class of recommendation. He was also concerned that many readers will skip to the summary recommendation table without reading the entire guideline document.

“I feel this is misleading in its present form,” he wrote in 2017.

Despite Dr. Brophy’s review, the guideline committee stuck with its original recommendations. The final 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization gave equal weight to both CABG and PCI in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In contrast, US guidelines do not put PCI and CABG on the same footing for any group of patients with left main CAD.

The lead author of the ESC/EACTS guidelines section on left main disease, and around a third of those on the writing task force, all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions. The EXCEL principal investigator, Dr. Kappetein, was secretary general of EACTS and oversaw the guidelines process for the surgical organization. He left to work for Medtronic midway through the process and was later joined there by his former research fellow, Stuart Head.

Dr. Brophy said in an interview that given the final guideline recommendations, he assumed that the committee had other reviews and went with the majority opinion.

But not everyone involved in the guidelines saw Dr. Brophy’s review. Nick Freemantle, a statistical reviewer appointed by EACTS, expected to see it but didn’t. This omission calls into question the neutrality of the whole process, in his view.

Mr. Freemantle believes that the deck was stacked so that he only saw the pieces of evidence that supported the conclusions that were already decided and that he was not shown “the bits that don’t fit that neatly.”

“And without that narrative, it all feels a bit grubby, to be honest,” he said.

Professor Barbara Casadei, ESC president, disputed this, saying that the guidelines were approved by all surgical members, including the EACTS council.

Missing from Dr. Brophy’s review were the later data from EXCEL. As he had told the DSMB in 2017, Stone presented the 4-year data from EXCEL at the TCT conference in September 2018. At this point, the analysis showed that 10.3% of people had died after PCI and 7.4% after CABG.

But this presentation was not given much prominence at the conference, which Dr. Stone organized, and occurred during a didactic session in a small room rather than on one of the main stages where the 3-year data from EXCEL were announced with much fanfare. The presentation also took place 3 weeks after the European guidelines were published.
 

Surgeons withdraw support

After the BBC report last year that the universal definition of MI data had been collected but not published in the 3-year follow-up manuscript, and showed more MI in the PCI group than the protocol definition, the EACTS withdrew its support for the guidelines. The ESC continued to uphold the guidelines «until there is robust scientific evidence (as opposed to allegations) indicating we should do otherwise,” said Ms. Casadei.

A spokesperson for NEJM said the journal stood by the EXCEL papers because “there is no credible harm to patients from the publication of the paper and accurate reporting of trial results.” NEJM has since conducted a review and published a series of letters in response. The letters have reinvigorated rather than appeased the dissenters, as reported by Medscape.

A number of cardiologists and researchers started a petition on change.org to revise the EACTS/ESC left main CAD guidelines, and surgical societies across the globe have written to the editor of NEJM asking him to retract or amend the EXCEL papers.

This has not happened. The journal’s editor maintains that the letters containing the analyses are “sufficient information” to allow readers and guideline authors to “evaluate the trial findings.”

Dr. Taggart was dismissive of that response. “There is still no recognition or acknowledgment that failure to publish these data in 2016 ‘misled’ the guideline writers for the ESC/EACTS guidelines, and there is still no formal correction of the 2016 and 2019 NEJM manuscripts.”

Over a year after the BBC received the leaked data, the EXCEL investigators published an analysis of the primary outcome using the universal definition of MI data in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It shows 141 events in the PCI arm, compared with 102 in the CABG arm. The investigators acknowledge that the rates of procedural MI differ depending on the definition used. According to their analysis, the protocol definition was predictive of mortality after both treatments, whereas the universal definition of procedural MI was predictive of mortality only after CABG. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and an accompanying editorial questioned these conclusions.

For Dr. Wallentin, it’s a relief that these data are in the public domain so that their interpretation and clinical consequences can be “openly discussed.” He hoped that the whole experience will result in something constructive and useful for the future.

As for the guidelines, the tide may be turning.

In a joint statement with EACTS on Oct. 6, 2020, the ESC agreed to review its guidelines for left main disease in the light of emerging, longer-term outcome data from the trials of CABG versus PCI.

Dr. Taggart has no regrets about speaking out despite this being “an exceedingly painful and bruising experience.”

The saga, he said, “reflects very badly on our specialty, the investigators, industry, and the world’s ‘leading’ medical journal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The choice of the secretary general of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery to open with this quote was the first hint that the next presentation at the 2019 annual meeting would be anything but dull. The session chair followed with a reminder to keep the discussion polite and civil.

Presenter David Taggart, MD, PhD, did not disappoint. The professor of cardiovascular surgery at the University of Oxford (England) began with the announcement that he had withdrawn his name from a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. He then proceeded to accuse his coinvestigators of misrepresenting the findings of a major clinical trial.

Dr. Taggart was chair of the surgical committee for the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which compared two procedures for patients who had blockages in their left main coronary artery: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using coronary stents, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The investigators designed the trial to compare outcomes for the two treatments using a composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI. The 3-year follow-up data had been published in NEJM without controversy – or, at least, without public controversy.

But when it came time to publish the 5-year follow-up, there was a significantly higher rate of death in the stent group, and both Dr. Taggart and the journal editors were concerned that this finding was being downplayed in the manuscript.

In their comments to the authors, the journal editors had recommended including the mortality difference (unless clearly trivial) ‘”in the concluding statement in the final paragraph.” Yet, the concluding statement of the published paper read that there “was no significant difference between PCI and CABG.”

In Dr. Taggart’s view, that claim was dangerous for patients, and so he was left with no choice but to remove himself as an author, a first for the academic with over 300 scientific papers to his name.

Earlier publications from the EXCEL trial had influenced European treatment guidelines. But subsequent allegations of misconduct and hidden data spurred the EACTS to repudiate those guidelines out of concern “that some results in the EXCEL trial appear to have been concealed and that some patients may therefore have received the wrong clinical advice.”

The controversy pitted cardiothoracic surgeons against interventional cardiologists, who were seen as increasingly encroaching on the surgeons’ turf. Dr. Taggart was a long-time critic of the subspecialty.

Surgeons demanded an independent analysis of the EXCEL trial data – a demand that the investigators have yet to satisfy. Dr. Taggart was the first to speak publicly, but others had major reservations about the trial reporting and conduct years earlier.
 

Mortality data held back

One such person was Lars Wallentin, MD, a professor of cardiology at Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, who chaired the independent committee that monitored the safety and scientific validity of the EXCEL trial.

The committee, known as the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB), received a report on March 23, 2016, that showed that increasingly more patients who had received stents were dying, compared with the group of patients that had undergone CABG. A graph of the survival curves showed the gap between the two groups widening after 3 years (Figure 1).

By September of that year, Dr. Wallentin and other members of the DSMB were anxious to share the concerning mortality difference with the broader medical community.

They were aware that EACTS and the European Society of Cardiology had started the process of updating their guidelines on myocardial revascularization, and were keen for the guideline writing committee to see all of the data.

Meanwhile, the trial investigators, led by principal investigator Gregg Stone, MD, then at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, were preparing to publish a report of the 3-year outcomes. Recruitment for EXCEL started in September 2010, so at the time of the 3-year analysis in 2016, some patients had been followed up for over 5 years. But the data, published in NEJM in October 2016, were capped at 3 years (Figure 2). It didn’t show the widening gap in late mortality that Dr. Wallentin and the rest of the DSMB had seen.

When asked about this, the investigators said they were transparent about their plans to cap the data at 3 years in an amendment to the study protocol. Stone’s coprincipal investigators were interventional cardiologist Patrick Serruys, MD, then of Imperial College London; and two surgeons: Joseph Sabik, MD, then of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and A. Pieter Kappetein, MD, PhD, then at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam. The four principal investigators all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions.

Study sponsor Abbott has distanced itself from the decisions made and has referred all questions about the trial to the EXCEL investigators. Charles Simonton, chief medical officer at Abbott (now at Abiomed) was a coauthor on both the 3- and 5-year papers. Dr. Wallentin believes that the sponsor must have been aware of the DSMB’s concerns.
 

Continuing DSMB concerns

A year later, the DSMB was still troubled. Dr. Wallentin emailed Dr. Stone in September 2017 asking for an updated analysis of the mortality data without any capping in time.

Dr. Wallentin added that he didn’t think that unblinding the mortality results would be an issue at that stage because these were late deaths in a trial where the interventions were long completed. But, he warned, “it might be very concerning if, in the future, suspicions were raised that already available information on mortality was withheld from the cardiology and thoracic surgery community.”

The investigators took a month to respond. They declined the request, saying that the trial was not statistically powered to measure mortality. In his email to Dr. Wallentin, Dr. Stone stressed that they were committed to complete disclosure of all of the EXCEL data and that the responsible time point to unblind was after 4 years. His coprincipal investigators (Dr. Serruys, Dr. Sabik, and Dr. Kappetein) as well as EXCEL statistical committee chair Stuart Pocock, PhD, and Mr. Simonton were all copied on the email.

Dr. Wallentin deferred to the principal investigators’ arguments.
 

Missing MI data

Death was not the only outcome of the EXCEL trial to draw scrutiny.

The EXCEL investigators used a unique definition of MI that was almost exclusively based on a rise in the cardiac biomarker CK-MB. This protocol definition of MI was later adapted into the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition in a paper coauthored by Dr. Stone. The investigators agreed to also measure MIs that met the more commonly used Third Universal Definition as a secondary endpoint. The Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction uses a change in biomarkers – preferably troponin or alternatively CK-MB – coupled with other clinical signs.

It is standard practice to report secondary endpoints in any analysis of the main findings of a study. Yet, the EXCEL investigators did not report the universal definition of MI in either the 3-year or 5-year publications.

This is critical because MI according to one definition may not count according to the other, and the final tally could tip the trial results positive, negative, or neutral for coronary stents.

In Dr. Taggart’s opinion, the protocol definition puts CABG at a disadvantage because it uses the same biomarker threshold for procedural-related MI for both PCI and CABG. Because surgery involves more manipulation of the heart, cardiac enzyme levels will naturally be higher after CABG than PCI. These procedure-related enzyme elevations are not “true clinical MIs,” according to Dr. Taggart and others.

Late last year, a dataset containing the 3-year follow-up of EXCEL, including the information on the universal definition of MI, was leaked to the BBC. Working with biostatisticians, the BBC confirmed that according to this definition, there were more MIs in the stent group.

Originally, the investigators disputed the finding, calling the BBC data “imaginary.” They claimed that they were unable to calculate a rate of MI according to the universal definition because they lacked routine collection of troponins, although the universal definition also allows use of CK-MB. They have since published an analysis of 5-year MI data according to the universal definition, which showed twice the rate of MI in the PCI group.

From the leaked data, the BBC calculated the main composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI using the universal definition of MI. Now the results swung in favor of CABG.
 

Impact on guidelines

None of this was known at the time the European cardiology societies convened a committee to write their new guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The writing panel disagreed about whether PCI and CABG were equivalent for patients with left main coronary artery disease (CAD).

Besides EXCEL, another study, the NOBLE trial, compared PCI and CABG in left main CAD and came to opposite conclusions – conclusions that matched the leaked data. In that trial, European investigators chose a slightly different primary endpoint: a composite of death, MI, stroke, and the need for a repeat procedure. They used the universal definition of MI exclusively, and notably, they omitted procedural MI from their clinical event count. The results, published at the same time as the EXCEL 3-year findings, suggested that CABG was better.

Given the discrepant findings of two large trials, the guideline committee considered all of the available data comparing the two methods of revascularization for left main CAD. But even then, things weren’t clear-cut. One draft meta-analysis, supported by the National Institute for Health Research, suggested that results were worse for first- and second-generation drug-eluting coronary stents – including those used in EXCEL – compared with surgery.

Another meta-analysis, later published in The Lancet, drew a different conclusion and found that PCI was just as good as surgery. The main author, Stuart Head, a cardiothoracic surgeon on the ESC/EACTS guideline committee, was a research fellow with EXCEL investigator Dr. Kappetein at Erasmus. EXCEL investigators Dr. Stone, Dr. Kappetein, and Dr. Serruys were coauthors of the Lancet meta-analysis.

There was heated discussion about the committee’s draft recommendations, which gave both CABG and PCI a Class IA recommendation in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In October 2017, the ESC commissioned an anonymous external reviewer to weigh in. James Brophy, MD, PhD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine and epidemiology at McGill University, Montreal, confirmed that he was the reviewer after he published an updated version in June 2020.

Looking at all of the data available at the time comparing the procedures for left main CAD, Dr. Brophy’s analysis suggested a 73% chance that the excess in death, stroke, or MI represents at least two excess events per 100 patients treated with PCI rather than CABG.

Dr. Brophy thought that most patients would find these differences clinically meaningful and advised against giving both procedures the same class of recommendation. He was also concerned that many readers will skip to the summary recommendation table without reading the entire guideline document.

“I feel this is misleading in its present form,” he wrote in 2017.

Despite Dr. Brophy’s review, the guideline committee stuck with its original recommendations. The final 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization gave equal weight to both CABG and PCI in patients with left main CAD and low anatomical complexity. In contrast, US guidelines do not put PCI and CABG on the same footing for any group of patients with left main CAD.

The lead author of the ESC/EACTS guidelines section on left main disease, and around a third of those on the writing task force, all declared financial payments from stent manufacturers either to themselves or their institutions. The EXCEL principal investigator, Dr. Kappetein, was secretary general of EACTS and oversaw the guidelines process for the surgical organization. He left to work for Medtronic midway through the process and was later joined there by his former research fellow, Stuart Head.

Dr. Brophy said in an interview that given the final guideline recommendations, he assumed that the committee had other reviews and went with the majority opinion.

But not everyone involved in the guidelines saw Dr. Brophy’s review. Nick Freemantle, a statistical reviewer appointed by EACTS, expected to see it but didn’t. This omission calls into question the neutrality of the whole process, in his view.

Mr. Freemantle believes that the deck was stacked so that he only saw the pieces of evidence that supported the conclusions that were already decided and that he was not shown “the bits that don’t fit that neatly.”

“And without that narrative, it all feels a bit grubby, to be honest,” he said.

Professor Barbara Casadei, ESC president, disputed this, saying that the guidelines were approved by all surgical members, including the EACTS council.

Missing from Dr. Brophy’s review were the later data from EXCEL. As he had told the DSMB in 2017, Stone presented the 4-year data from EXCEL at the TCT conference in September 2018. At this point, the analysis showed that 10.3% of people had died after PCI and 7.4% after CABG.

But this presentation was not given much prominence at the conference, which Dr. Stone organized, and occurred during a didactic session in a small room rather than on one of the main stages where the 3-year data from EXCEL were announced with much fanfare. The presentation also took place 3 weeks after the European guidelines were published.
 

Surgeons withdraw support

After the BBC report last year that the universal definition of MI data had been collected but not published in the 3-year follow-up manuscript, and showed more MI in the PCI group than the protocol definition, the EACTS withdrew its support for the guidelines. The ESC continued to uphold the guidelines «until there is robust scientific evidence (as opposed to allegations) indicating we should do otherwise,” said Ms. Casadei.

A spokesperson for NEJM said the journal stood by the EXCEL papers because “there is no credible harm to patients from the publication of the paper and accurate reporting of trial results.” NEJM has since conducted a review and published a series of letters in response. The letters have reinvigorated rather than appeased the dissenters, as reported by Medscape.

A number of cardiologists and researchers started a petition on change.org to revise the EACTS/ESC left main CAD guidelines, and surgical societies across the globe have written to the editor of NEJM asking him to retract or amend the EXCEL papers.

This has not happened. The journal’s editor maintains that the letters containing the analyses are “sufficient information” to allow readers and guideline authors to “evaluate the trial findings.”

Dr. Taggart was dismissive of that response. “There is still no recognition or acknowledgment that failure to publish these data in 2016 ‘misled’ the guideline writers for the ESC/EACTS guidelines, and there is still no formal correction of the 2016 and 2019 NEJM manuscripts.”

Over a year after the BBC received the leaked data, the EXCEL investigators published an analysis of the primary outcome using the universal definition of MI data in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It shows 141 events in the PCI arm, compared with 102 in the CABG arm. The investigators acknowledge that the rates of procedural MI differ depending on the definition used. According to their analysis, the protocol definition was predictive of mortality after both treatments, whereas the universal definition of procedural MI was predictive of mortality only after CABG. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and an accompanying editorial questioned these conclusions.

For Dr. Wallentin, it’s a relief that these data are in the public domain so that their interpretation and clinical consequences can be “openly discussed.” He hoped that the whole experience will result in something constructive and useful for the future.

As for the guidelines, the tide may be turning.

In a joint statement with EACTS on Oct. 6, 2020, the ESC agreed to review its guidelines for left main disease in the light of emerging, longer-term outcome data from the trials of CABG versus PCI.

Dr. Taggart has no regrets about speaking out despite this being “an exceedingly painful and bruising experience.”

The saga, he said, “reflects very badly on our specialty, the investigators, industry, and the world’s ‘leading’ medical journal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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