Adding metformin to standard care for advanced prostate cancer appeared to lengthen time to castration-resistant disease in a small, randomized trial.

“According to our data, metformin potentially prolongs the time to progression … when combined with androgen deprivation therapy,” said investigator Reham ALGhandour, MD, PhD, an assistant lecturer of medical oncology at Mansoura (Egypt) University.

Dr. ALGhandour presented the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Prior observational studies have indicated that metformin may benefit patients with prostate cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested metformin can significantly improve overall, cancer-specific, and recurrence-free survival in prostate cancer patients.

To explore this further, Dr. ALGhandour and colleagues conducted a randomized trial. They enrolled 124 men with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

The investigators randomized 62 patients to testosterone suppression with or without antiandrogen, and 62 others to a standard regimen plus metformin at 850 mg twice daily.

All patients had an Easter Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2, were set to receive androgen deprivation therapy long term, and had no prior metformin use. Docetaxel was permitted for metastatic patients, and external beam radiation therapy was used for localized and regional disease.
 

Results: ‘Dramatic’ but not ‘definitive’

At a median follow-up of 18 months, there was a significant difference in time to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The median time to progression was 29 months with metformin and 20 months with standard therapy alone (P = .01).

Subgroup analyses showed a benefit with metformin in men with N1 disease (P = .001) and men with localized disease/low tumor burden (P = .008).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms (P = .1). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

About 4% of metformin patients had grade 2 diarrhea, but adverse events were otherwise comparable between the arms and mostly related to androgen deprivation.

“The authors have got some pretty dramatic findings,” said Noel Clarke, MBBS, a consultant urologist at Salford Royal Hospital and The Christie, Manchester, England, who was a discussant for the study.

Dr. Clarke said the data are “hypothesis generating,” but, because of small numbers, the study “really falls well short of anything that is definitive.”

“We’ll have to wait for bigger studies,” Dr. Clarke said, adding that one arm of the STAMPEDE trial has recruited 2,200 prostate cancer patients to standard of care plus metformin.

“We will report on this trial presently,” he said. “Hopefully, this will add to the body of literature which will determine whether or not metformin is useful with standard of care in this disease.”

Dr. Clarke said the possible benefits of metformin are probably related to energetics in prostate cancer.

“AMPK [AMP-activated protein kinase] is the energy superhighway regulator,” he explained. “[I]t slows down the effects of cell proliferation and energy usage, and it promotes the use of energy storage mechanisms.

“Metformin, because it acts on AMPK to up-regulate it … enhances the effect of AMPK, shutting down the catabolic elements and impeding other elements of prostate cancer migration. So AMPK inhibits epithelial to mesenchymal transition, which is well known as a metastatic mechanism.”

There was no outside funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures. Dr. Clarke disclosed relationships with Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ALGhandour R et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 617MO.

Adding metformin to standard care for advanced prostate cancer appeared to lengthen time to castration-resistant disease in a small, randomized trial.

“According to our data, metformin potentially prolongs the time to progression … when combined with androgen deprivation therapy,” said investigator Reham ALGhandour, MD, PhD, an assistant lecturer of medical oncology at Mansoura (Egypt) University.

Dr. ALGhandour presented the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Prior observational studies have indicated that metformin may benefit patients with prostate cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested metformin can significantly improve overall, cancer-specific, and recurrence-free survival in prostate cancer patients.

To explore this further, Dr. ALGhandour and colleagues conducted a randomized trial. They enrolled 124 men with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

The investigators randomized 62 patients to testosterone suppression with or without antiandrogen, and 62 others to a standard regimen plus metformin at 850 mg twice daily.

All patients had an Easter Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2, were set to receive androgen deprivation therapy long term, and had no prior metformin use. Docetaxel was permitted for metastatic patients, and external beam radiation therapy was used for localized and regional disease.
 

Results: ‘Dramatic’ but not ‘definitive’

At a median follow-up of 18 months, there was a significant difference in time to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The median time to progression was 29 months with metformin and 20 months with standard therapy alone (P = .01).

Subgroup analyses showed a benefit with metformin in men with N1 disease (P = .001) and men with localized disease/low tumor burden (P = .008).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms (P = .1). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

About 4% of metformin patients had grade 2 diarrhea, but adverse events were otherwise comparable between the arms and mostly related to androgen deprivation.

“The authors have got some pretty dramatic findings,” said Noel Clarke, MBBS, a consultant urologist at Salford Royal Hospital and The Christie, Manchester, England, who was a discussant for the study.

Dr. Clarke said the data are “hypothesis generating,” but, because of small numbers, the study “really falls well short of anything that is definitive.”

“We’ll have to wait for bigger studies,” Dr. Clarke said, adding that one arm of the STAMPEDE trial has recruited 2,200 prostate cancer patients to standard of care plus metformin.

“We will report on this trial presently,” he said. “Hopefully, this will add to the body of literature which will determine whether or not metformin is useful with standard of care in this disease.”

Dr. Clarke said the possible benefits of metformin are probably related to energetics in prostate cancer.

“AMPK [AMP-activated protein kinase] is the energy superhighway regulator,” he explained. “[I]t slows down the effects of cell proliferation and energy usage, and it promotes the use of energy storage mechanisms.

“Metformin, because it acts on AMPK to up-regulate it … enhances the effect of AMPK, shutting down the catabolic elements and impeding other elements of prostate cancer migration. So AMPK inhibits epithelial to mesenchymal transition, which is well known as a metastatic mechanism.”

There was no outside funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures. Dr. Clarke disclosed relationships with Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ALGhandour R et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 617MO.

Adding metformin to standard care for advanced prostate cancer appeared to lengthen time to castration-resistant disease in a small, randomized trial.

“According to our data, metformin potentially prolongs the time to progression … when combined with androgen deprivation therapy,” said investigator Reham ALGhandour, MD, PhD, an assistant lecturer of medical oncology at Mansoura (Egypt) University.

Dr. ALGhandour presented the data at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Prior observational studies have indicated that metformin may benefit patients with prostate cancer. A meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested metformin can significantly improve overall, cancer-specific, and recurrence-free survival in prostate cancer patients.

To explore this further, Dr. ALGhandour and colleagues conducted a randomized trial. They enrolled 124 men with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

The investigators randomized 62 patients to testosterone suppression with or without antiandrogen, and 62 others to a standard regimen plus metformin at 850 mg twice daily.

All patients had an Easter Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2, were set to receive androgen deprivation therapy long term, and had no prior metformin use. Docetaxel was permitted for metastatic patients, and external beam radiation therapy was used for localized and regional disease.
 

Results: ‘Dramatic’ but not ‘definitive’

At a median follow-up of 18 months, there was a significant difference in time to castration-resistant prostate cancer. The median time to progression was 29 months with metformin and 20 months with standard therapy alone (P = .01).

Subgroup analyses showed a benefit with metformin in men with N1 disease (P = .001) and men with localized disease/low tumor burden (P = .008).

There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms (P = .1). The median overall survival was not reached in either arm.

About 4% of metformin patients had grade 2 diarrhea, but adverse events were otherwise comparable between the arms and mostly related to androgen deprivation.

“The authors have got some pretty dramatic findings,” said Noel Clarke, MBBS, a consultant urologist at Salford Royal Hospital and The Christie, Manchester, England, who was a discussant for the study.

Dr. Clarke said the data are “hypothesis generating,” but, because of small numbers, the study “really falls well short of anything that is definitive.”

“We’ll have to wait for bigger studies,” Dr. Clarke said, adding that one arm of the STAMPEDE trial has recruited 2,200 prostate cancer patients to standard of care plus metformin.

“We will report on this trial presently,” he said. “Hopefully, this will add to the body of literature which will determine whether or not metformin is useful with standard of care in this disease.”

Dr. Clarke said the possible benefits of metformin are probably related to energetics in prostate cancer.

“AMPK [AMP-activated protein kinase] is the energy superhighway regulator,” he explained. “[I]t slows down the effects of cell proliferation and energy usage, and it promotes the use of energy storage mechanisms.

“Metformin, because it acts on AMPK to up-regulate it … enhances the effect of AMPK, shutting down the catabolic elements and impeding other elements of prostate cancer migration. So AMPK inhibits epithelial to mesenchymal transition, which is well known as a metastatic mechanism.”

There was no outside funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t report any disclosures. Dr. Clarke disclosed relationships with Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ALGhandour R et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 617MO.

• Even in a virtual environment, the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons delivers without a “glitch”
• Transvaginal reconstructive surgery for POP: Innovative approach to graft augmentation in the post-mesh era
• How to build your identity as a physician online

Patrick Culligan, MD

Co-Director, Urogynecology
Valley Hospital System
Ridgewood, New Jersey
Professor, Gynecology & Urology
Weill Cornell Medical College
New York, New York

Jessica Sosa-Stanley, MD

Fellow, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery
St. Luke’s University Health Network
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Vincent R. Lucente, MD, MBA

Section Chief, Urogynecology
Chief, Gynecology
Medical Director, Pelvic Health Center
St. Luke’s University Health Network
Partner & Chief Medical Officer
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine &
Reconstructive Surgery
Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Temple University College of Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Michael J. Kennelly, MD

Medical Director, Charlotte Continence Center
Carolinas Medical Center
Director of Urology
Carolinas Rehabilitation Hospital
Co-Director, Women’s Center for Pelvic Health
Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, Division
of Urology
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sachin B. Shenoy, MD

Resident
New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital
Brooklyn, New York

Brad Bowman, MD

Chief Medical Officer
Healthgrades
Atlanta, Georgia

Peter M. Lotze, MD

Urogynecologist
Women’s Pelvic Restorative Center
Houston, Texas

Heather Schueppert

Chief Marketing Officer
Unified Women’s Healthcare
Boca Raton, Florida

• Even in a virtual environment, the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons delivers without a “glitch”
• Transvaginal reconstructive surgery for POP: Innovative approach to graft augmentation in the post-mesh era
• How to build your identity as a physician online

Patrick Culligan, MD

Co-Director, Urogynecology
Valley Hospital System
Ridgewood, New Jersey
Professor, Gynecology & Urology
Weill Cornell Medical College
New York, New York

Jessica Sosa-Stanley, MD

Fellow, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery
St. Luke’s University Health Network
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Vincent R. Lucente, MD, MBA

Section Chief, Urogynecology
Chief, Gynecology
Medical Director, Pelvic Health Center
St. Luke’s University Health Network
Partner & Chief Medical Officer
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine &
Reconstructive Surgery
Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Temple University College of Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Michael J. Kennelly, MD

Medical Director, Charlotte Continence Center
Carolinas Medical Center
Director of Urology
Carolinas Rehabilitation Hospital
Co-Director, Women’s Center for Pelvic Health
Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, Division
of Urology
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sachin B. Shenoy, MD

Resident
New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital
Brooklyn, New York

Brad Bowman, MD

Chief Medical Officer
Healthgrades
Atlanta, Georgia

Peter M. Lotze, MD

Urogynecologist
Women’s Pelvic Restorative Center
Houston, Texas

Heather Schueppert

Chief Marketing Officer
Unified Women’s Healthcare
Boca Raton, Florida

• Even in a virtual environment, the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons delivers without a “glitch”
• Transvaginal reconstructive surgery for POP: Innovative approach to graft augmentation in the post-mesh era
• How to build your identity as a physician online

Patrick Culligan, MD

Co-Director, Urogynecology
Valley Hospital System
Ridgewood, New Jersey
Professor, Gynecology & Urology
Weill Cornell Medical College
New York, New York

Jessica Sosa-Stanley, MD

Fellow, Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery
St. Luke’s University Health Network
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Vincent R. Lucente, MD, MBA

Section Chief, Urogynecology
Chief, Gynecology
Medical Director, Pelvic Health Center
St. Luke’s University Health Network
Partner & Chief Medical Officer
The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine &
Reconstructive Surgery
Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Temple University College of Medicine
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Michael J. Kennelly, MD

Medical Director, Charlotte Continence Center
Carolinas Medical Center
Director of Urology
Carolinas Rehabilitation Hospital
Co-Director, Women’s Center for Pelvic Health
Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, Division
of Urology
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sachin B. Shenoy, MD

Resident
New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital
Brooklyn, New York

Brad Bowman, MD

Chief Medical Officer
Healthgrades
Atlanta, Georgia

Peter M. Lotze, MD

Urogynecologist
Women’s Pelvic Restorative Center
Houston, Texas

Heather Schueppert

Chief Marketing Officer
Unified Women’s Healthcare
Boca Raton, Florida

Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have an increased heart rate – a finding that may have the potential to identify individuals at risk for the disorder and predict treatment response, early research suggests.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Using the rapid-action of the novel antidepressant ketamine and the latest wearable 24-hour electrocardiogram (ECG) technology, investigators found that heart rate could distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals.

They also found that patients with MDD with the highest resting heart rate had a greater treatment response. In fact, on average, depressed patients had a heart rate that was roughly 10-15 beats per minute higher than healthy controls.

The innovative design of the proof-of-concept study “allowed us to see that average resting heart rate may change quite suddenly to reflect the change in mood,” lead investigator Carmen Schiweck, PhD, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, said in an interview.

These results could have “exciting implications for treatment selection,” and the researchers plan to assess the potential for heart rate to act as an early warning system for depression, they noted.

The findings were presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Identifying trait markers

There have been recent attempts to assess heart rate or heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with MDD to identify trait markers, which are present regardless of the disease phase, or state markers, which are present only during a depressive phase.

However, heart rate and HRV are “highly variable” over a 24-hour cycle, a fact that has been ignored by recent classification efforts, the researchers noted. Moreover, most commonly used antidepressants have a long onset of action, which makes studying their impact on the heart rate challenging.

The researchers’ goal was to determine whether heart rate and HRV could be used as trait markers to distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals and, through the use of ketamine, whether they can also act as state markers for depression.

For the study, 16 treatment-resistant patients with MDD and 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls wore a portable ECG device for 4 consecutive days and 3 nights. Heart rate and HRV data were subsequently averaged to obtain a 24-hour ECG.

Participants then received a single infusion of intravenous ketamine for 40 minutes. After waiting for 1 hour, the patients resumed ECG recording for an additional 4 days, with changes in mood assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).

Results showed that, compared with the control group, patients with MDD had a significantly higher 24-hour heart rate (P < .001) and a significantly lower HRV, as measured by the root mean square of successive differences (P < .001).

The investigators also found a reduction in heart rate amplitude, which indicates “significant blunting of circadian rhythm variation throughout the day and less recovery at night.”
 

Ninety percent accuracy

Harmonic and binary regression showed that heart rate was able to identify those with MDD versus those in the control group, particularly using nighttime readings, with 90.6% accuracy. The data correctly identified 14 (87.5%) patients and 15 (93.8%) members of the control group.

Following treatment, heart rate decreased significantly among the MDD group (P < .001), but there was no significant change in HRV (P = .295).

There was a significant positive association between baseline heart rate and response to treatment on the HAM-D (r = .55; P = .046), which suggested better outcomes in patients with a higher heart rate.

Interestingly, while heart rate was positively correlated with depression severity before treatment (r = .59; P = .03), this relationship disappeared following treatment (r = –0.04; P = .90), suggesting heart rate changes were not linked to depression states.

While heart rate levels may be useful as a trait marker and, potentially, for predicting response to antidepressant treatment, they did not show potential as a state marker, the investigators noted.

They suggested that, while the results need to be confirmed in longitudinal studies, approval of a ketamine nasal spray “may open up new avenues to conceive treatment paradigms, as explored in this study.”

However, “this is a small proof-of-concept study,” the investigators acknowledged. They also point out that only six of the patients with MDD had a reduction in HAM-D scores of at least 30% in response to treatment.

Future research plans

Dr. Schiweck said in an interview that her team was able to identify differences in heart rate and HRV in MDD patients that were not observed in other studies because portable at-home devices allowed them to monitor heart rate continuously over days.

The use of ketamine may also have been advantageous because the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), which was published in 2010, clearly showed that “traditional antidepressants,” in particular tricyclic antidepressants, have a strong influence on heart rate and HRV, Dr. Schiweck said.

The team next wants to replicate their study in patients who take nonketamine antidepressants and then remit, because most of the recent studies “just assess patients who are remitted and patients who are currently depressed, but it’s a cross-sectional study design,” said Schiweck.

“If we can follow up the same patients over time then we might really know if it is possible to use heart rate as a state marker for depression,” she added. “That’s what we tried to do with ketamine, but our study was very, very small.”

She noted that the investigators would also like to assess individuals who are “very stressed” and may show some depressive symptoms but don’t yet have a diagnosis of depression.

Mind-body link

Commenting on the findings, Brenda W.J.H. Penninx, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric epidemiology at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, said the concept of higher heart rate and lower HRV in depression “is indicative of more sympathetic drive and less parasympathetic drive of the autonomic nervous system.”

“That fits with the overall thought that depression is a state with more continuous exposure to stress overactivation of the body, which can be reflected in the [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis, leading to higher levels of cortisol stress hormone. But it can also be reflected in the parasympathetic and sympathetic activation of the autonomic nervous system,” she said.

Dr. Penninx, who was also the principal investigator of the NESDA study, was not involved with the current research.

She noted that the NESDA study showed that, when patients with depressive disorder are compared with a healthy controls group, they have a higher heart rate and lower HRV. “But if we then divide people into medicated and nonmedicated people ... then we see that these deviations are only seen in people using medication,” she added.

“Our findings indicate that at least the use of antidepressants is having quite a large impact on autonomic nervous system dysregulation,” Dr. Penninx said. The difference with the current study, she pointed out, is that “it examines the problem over a completely different time scale.”

Although this offers advantages, the current study did not have the large patient numbers that were included in the NESDA study and “they were not clearly able to distinguish the effect of disease from medication,” noted Dr. Penninx.

In addition, this is not an easy area to investigate because there are multiple factors that can mitigate results, including the psychiatric state of the patient, use of medications for both mental illness and cardiometabolic disease, and a patient’s age and gender.

Still, the study clearly illustrates the importance of the interplay between mental health and somatic health and that there is “a very clear indication that we don’t need to separate those,” Dr. Penninx said.

The study was funded by a TGO-IWT Grant from Belgium. The study authors and Dr. Penninx have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have an increased heart rate – a finding that may have the potential to identify individuals at risk for the disorder and predict treatment response, early research suggests.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Using the rapid-action of the novel antidepressant ketamine and the latest wearable 24-hour electrocardiogram (ECG) technology, investigators found that heart rate could distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals.

They also found that patients with MDD with the highest resting heart rate had a greater treatment response. In fact, on average, depressed patients had a heart rate that was roughly 10-15 beats per minute higher than healthy controls.

The innovative design of the proof-of-concept study “allowed us to see that average resting heart rate may change quite suddenly to reflect the change in mood,” lead investigator Carmen Schiweck, PhD, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, said in an interview.

These results could have “exciting implications for treatment selection,” and the researchers plan to assess the potential for heart rate to act as an early warning system for depression, they noted.

The findings were presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Identifying trait markers

There have been recent attempts to assess heart rate or heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with MDD to identify trait markers, which are present regardless of the disease phase, or state markers, which are present only during a depressive phase.

However, heart rate and HRV are “highly variable” over a 24-hour cycle, a fact that has been ignored by recent classification efforts, the researchers noted. Moreover, most commonly used antidepressants have a long onset of action, which makes studying their impact on the heart rate challenging.

The researchers’ goal was to determine whether heart rate and HRV could be used as trait markers to distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals and, through the use of ketamine, whether they can also act as state markers for depression.

For the study, 16 treatment-resistant patients with MDD and 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls wore a portable ECG device for 4 consecutive days and 3 nights. Heart rate and HRV data were subsequently averaged to obtain a 24-hour ECG.

Participants then received a single infusion of intravenous ketamine for 40 minutes. After waiting for 1 hour, the patients resumed ECG recording for an additional 4 days, with changes in mood assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).

Results showed that, compared with the control group, patients with MDD had a significantly higher 24-hour heart rate (P < .001) and a significantly lower HRV, as measured by the root mean square of successive differences (P < .001).

The investigators also found a reduction in heart rate amplitude, which indicates “significant blunting of circadian rhythm variation throughout the day and less recovery at night.”
 

Ninety percent accuracy

Harmonic and binary regression showed that heart rate was able to identify those with MDD versus those in the control group, particularly using nighttime readings, with 90.6% accuracy. The data correctly identified 14 (87.5%) patients and 15 (93.8%) members of the control group.

Following treatment, heart rate decreased significantly among the MDD group (P < .001), but there was no significant change in HRV (P = .295).

There was a significant positive association between baseline heart rate and response to treatment on the HAM-D (r = .55; P = .046), which suggested better outcomes in patients with a higher heart rate.

Interestingly, while heart rate was positively correlated with depression severity before treatment (r = .59; P = .03), this relationship disappeared following treatment (r = –0.04; P = .90), suggesting heart rate changes were not linked to depression states.

While heart rate levels may be useful as a trait marker and, potentially, for predicting response to antidepressant treatment, they did not show potential as a state marker, the investigators noted.

They suggested that, while the results need to be confirmed in longitudinal studies, approval of a ketamine nasal spray “may open up new avenues to conceive treatment paradigms, as explored in this study.”

However, “this is a small proof-of-concept study,” the investigators acknowledged. They also point out that only six of the patients with MDD had a reduction in HAM-D scores of at least 30% in response to treatment.

Future research plans

Dr. Schiweck said in an interview that her team was able to identify differences in heart rate and HRV in MDD patients that were not observed in other studies because portable at-home devices allowed them to monitor heart rate continuously over days.

The use of ketamine may also have been advantageous because the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), which was published in 2010, clearly showed that “traditional antidepressants,” in particular tricyclic antidepressants, have a strong influence on heart rate and HRV, Dr. Schiweck said.

The team next wants to replicate their study in patients who take nonketamine antidepressants and then remit, because most of the recent studies “just assess patients who are remitted and patients who are currently depressed, but it’s a cross-sectional study design,” said Schiweck.

“If we can follow up the same patients over time then we might really know if it is possible to use heart rate as a state marker for depression,” she added. “That’s what we tried to do with ketamine, but our study was very, very small.”

She noted that the investigators would also like to assess individuals who are “very stressed” and may show some depressive symptoms but don’t yet have a diagnosis of depression.

Mind-body link

Commenting on the findings, Brenda W.J.H. Penninx, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric epidemiology at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, said the concept of higher heart rate and lower HRV in depression “is indicative of more sympathetic drive and less parasympathetic drive of the autonomic nervous system.”

“That fits with the overall thought that depression is a state with more continuous exposure to stress overactivation of the body, which can be reflected in the [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis, leading to higher levels of cortisol stress hormone. But it can also be reflected in the parasympathetic and sympathetic activation of the autonomic nervous system,” she said.

Dr. Penninx, who was also the principal investigator of the NESDA study, was not involved with the current research.

She noted that the NESDA study showed that, when patients with depressive disorder are compared with a healthy controls group, they have a higher heart rate and lower HRV. “But if we then divide people into medicated and nonmedicated people ... then we see that these deviations are only seen in people using medication,” she added.

“Our findings indicate that at least the use of antidepressants is having quite a large impact on autonomic nervous system dysregulation,” Dr. Penninx said. The difference with the current study, she pointed out, is that “it examines the problem over a completely different time scale.”

Although this offers advantages, the current study did not have the large patient numbers that were included in the NESDA study and “they were not clearly able to distinguish the effect of disease from medication,” noted Dr. Penninx.

In addition, this is not an easy area to investigate because there are multiple factors that can mitigate results, including the psychiatric state of the patient, use of medications for both mental illness and cardiometabolic disease, and a patient’s age and gender.

Still, the study clearly illustrates the importance of the interplay between mental health and somatic health and that there is “a very clear indication that we don’t need to separate those,” Dr. Penninx said.

The study was funded by a TGO-IWT Grant from Belgium. The study authors and Dr. Penninx have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have an increased heart rate – a finding that may have the potential to identify individuals at risk for the disorder and predict treatment response, early research suggests.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Using the rapid-action of the novel antidepressant ketamine and the latest wearable 24-hour electrocardiogram (ECG) technology, investigators found that heart rate could distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals.

They also found that patients with MDD with the highest resting heart rate had a greater treatment response. In fact, on average, depressed patients had a heart rate that was roughly 10-15 beats per minute higher than healthy controls.

The innovative design of the proof-of-concept study “allowed us to see that average resting heart rate may change quite suddenly to reflect the change in mood,” lead investigator Carmen Schiweck, PhD, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, said in an interview.

These results could have “exciting implications for treatment selection,” and the researchers plan to assess the potential for heart rate to act as an early warning system for depression, they noted.

The findings were presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Identifying trait markers

There have been recent attempts to assess heart rate or heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with MDD to identify trait markers, which are present regardless of the disease phase, or state markers, which are present only during a depressive phase.

However, heart rate and HRV are “highly variable” over a 24-hour cycle, a fact that has been ignored by recent classification efforts, the researchers noted. Moreover, most commonly used antidepressants have a long onset of action, which makes studying their impact on the heart rate challenging.

The researchers’ goal was to determine whether heart rate and HRV could be used as trait markers to distinguish MDD patients from healthy individuals and, through the use of ketamine, whether they can also act as state markers for depression.

For the study, 16 treatment-resistant patients with MDD and 16 age- and sex-matched healthy controls wore a portable ECG device for 4 consecutive days and 3 nights. Heart rate and HRV data were subsequently averaged to obtain a 24-hour ECG.

Participants then received a single infusion of intravenous ketamine for 40 minutes. After waiting for 1 hour, the patients resumed ECG recording for an additional 4 days, with changes in mood assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).

Results showed that, compared with the control group, patients with MDD had a significantly higher 24-hour heart rate (P < .001) and a significantly lower HRV, as measured by the root mean square of successive differences (P < .001).

The investigators also found a reduction in heart rate amplitude, which indicates “significant blunting of circadian rhythm variation throughout the day and less recovery at night.”
 

Ninety percent accuracy

Harmonic and binary regression showed that heart rate was able to identify those with MDD versus those in the control group, particularly using nighttime readings, with 90.6% accuracy. The data correctly identified 14 (87.5%) patients and 15 (93.8%) members of the control group.

Following treatment, heart rate decreased significantly among the MDD group (P < .001), but there was no significant change in HRV (P = .295).

There was a significant positive association between baseline heart rate and response to treatment on the HAM-D (r = .55; P = .046), which suggested better outcomes in patients with a higher heart rate.

Interestingly, while heart rate was positively correlated with depression severity before treatment (r = .59; P = .03), this relationship disappeared following treatment (r = –0.04; P = .90), suggesting heart rate changes were not linked to depression states.

While heart rate levels may be useful as a trait marker and, potentially, for predicting response to antidepressant treatment, they did not show potential as a state marker, the investigators noted.

They suggested that, while the results need to be confirmed in longitudinal studies, approval of a ketamine nasal spray “may open up new avenues to conceive treatment paradigms, as explored in this study.”

However, “this is a small proof-of-concept study,” the investigators acknowledged. They also point out that only six of the patients with MDD had a reduction in HAM-D scores of at least 30% in response to treatment.

Future research plans

Dr. Schiweck said in an interview that her team was able to identify differences in heart rate and HRV in MDD patients that were not observed in other studies because portable at-home devices allowed them to monitor heart rate continuously over days.

The use of ketamine may also have been advantageous because the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), which was published in 2010, clearly showed that “traditional antidepressants,” in particular tricyclic antidepressants, have a strong influence on heart rate and HRV, Dr. Schiweck said.

The team next wants to replicate their study in patients who take nonketamine antidepressants and then remit, because most of the recent studies “just assess patients who are remitted and patients who are currently depressed, but it’s a cross-sectional study design,” said Schiweck.

“If we can follow up the same patients over time then we might really know if it is possible to use heart rate as a state marker for depression,” she added. “That’s what we tried to do with ketamine, but our study was very, very small.”

She noted that the investigators would also like to assess individuals who are “very stressed” and may show some depressive symptoms but don’t yet have a diagnosis of depression.

Mind-body link

Commenting on the findings, Brenda W.J.H. Penninx, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric epidemiology at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, said the concept of higher heart rate and lower HRV in depression “is indicative of more sympathetic drive and less parasympathetic drive of the autonomic nervous system.”

“That fits with the overall thought that depression is a state with more continuous exposure to stress overactivation of the body, which can be reflected in the [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis, leading to higher levels of cortisol stress hormone. But it can also be reflected in the parasympathetic and sympathetic activation of the autonomic nervous system,” she said.

Dr. Penninx, who was also the principal investigator of the NESDA study, was not involved with the current research.

She noted that the NESDA study showed that, when patients with depressive disorder are compared with a healthy controls group, they have a higher heart rate and lower HRV. “But if we then divide people into medicated and nonmedicated people ... then we see that these deviations are only seen in people using medication,” she added.

“Our findings indicate that at least the use of antidepressants is having quite a large impact on autonomic nervous system dysregulation,” Dr. Penninx said. The difference with the current study, she pointed out, is that “it examines the problem over a completely different time scale.”

Although this offers advantages, the current study did not have the large patient numbers that were included in the NESDA study and “they were not clearly able to distinguish the effect of disease from medication,” noted Dr. Penninx.

In addition, this is not an easy area to investigate because there are multiple factors that can mitigate results, including the psychiatric state of the patient, use of medications for both mental illness and cardiometabolic disease, and a patient’s age and gender.

Still, the study clearly illustrates the importance of the interplay between mental health and somatic health and that there is “a very clear indication that we don’t need to separate those,” Dr. Penninx said.

The study was funded by a TGO-IWT Grant from Belgium. The study authors and Dr. Penninx have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

Maintenance is a important component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, but it’s still a relatively new concept in the treat of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

The topic of AML maintenance “has become quite hot actually, recently, after languishing for years behind ALL, a disease where maintenance is absolutely critical to overall survival; we haven’t had that much to talk about it in AML until recently,” said Gail J. Roboz, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine and The New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York.

Dr. Roboz discussed her approach to AML maintenance during the virtual American Society of Hematology Meeting on Hematologic Malignancies.

The current AML treatment paradigm starts with remission induction via intensive or less-intensive therapies, followed by consolidation with chemotherapy or with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), with maintenance considered as a possibility for some patients.

“Strictly speaking, maintenance is the idea of keeping someone in remission, but we’ve gotten used to it that maintenance is postremission therapy that is different from what you had in your induction,” she noted. “That said, the exact nature of maintenance, while it most traditionally refers to an ongoing lower-intensity therapy, is a little bit complicated these days of what exactly constitutes maintenance.”

Current AML treatments generally fail to completely eliminate leukemic cells, so nearly all patients have remissions with minimal residual disease (MRD).

“You have a heterogeneous mix of leukemia stem cells, progenitors, blast cells, and you are in remission but there are still leftovers, and those leftovers result in disease relapse, and the goal of postremission therapy to basically target and hopefully eradicate the leftovers,” Dr. Roboz said.

Focusing on the postremission period is vital because most patients with AML will die within 1 year after disease relapse.
 

Many options, none great

National Comprehensive Cancer Network AML guidelines recommend a variety of approaches to postremission therapy for patients younger than 60 years with AML, including, depending on risk, either histone deacetylase inhibitors, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), chemotherapy, and/or SCT, but none of these options, strictly speaking, is called maintenance, she noted.

For patients 60 years and older, “there’s also a likelihood of proceeding with hypomethylating [HMA]-based therapy in such a way that, if they’re responding to initial treatment, they get ongoing therapy with whatever HMA or hypomethylating-based regimen they’re responding to. So is that called maintenance? Is that called ongoing therapy? Continuing therapy? It’s a subject of some controversy,” she added.

For patients younger than 60, hematopoietic SCT has been the ultimate form of maintenance, and increasingly allogeneic SCT is being employed in the United States for patients older than 60 years, including those 70 years and older.

“That has been a good thing, because we’ve been able to offer more patients potentially curative therapy, but the problem is that allo transplant is not a free lunch either, and there are significant risks of nonrelapse mortality, especially for patients going into the transplant with other comorbidities,” Dr. Roboz said.

The majority of older patients may not be cured with transplant because of the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens with the result of extended disease-free survival but eventual relapse from residual disease.

“The question is, if you’re an older patient and you can’t get an ablative transplant and you do have residual disease, what’s the likelihood of actually being cured at 2 years, and do you really want to go through the headaches of having a transplant?” she said.
 

Nontransplant options

In the RATIFY trial, patients 60 years and younger with newly diagnosed AML with activating FLT3-mutations were randomized to induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin and cytarabine, consolidation with an histone deacetylase inhibitor, and then maintenance for up to 12 cycles with either midostaurin or placebo.

Although the trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement in overall survival with midostaurin (4-year overall survival, 51.4% vs. 44.3% with placebo), there is still uncertainty as to whether the observed survival benefit was caused by midostaurin or by something else, Dr. Roboz said.

“That said, it certainly has become common to use FLT3 inhibitors as postremission strategy for patients, with consolidation, with allo transplant, after allo transplant – wherever you can get the inhibitor in there,” she said.

The isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors ivosidenib (for IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2) have also been tried in a postremission maintenance-like setting, but have thus far not been demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective in this setting, she added.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin, an anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, was approved in 2000 for adults 60 years and older with CD33+ AML in first remission, and in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed CD33+ AML, as well as adults and children 2 years and older with relapsed or refractory CD33+ AML, but there are no data to show whether this antibody-drug conjugate could have benefit in a maintenance setting.

As previously reported, the combination of the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Venclexta) with azacitidine was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, compared with azacitidine alone, in the VIALE-A trial.

“The question now is, in these studies most of the time patients are given a combination of aza and venetoclax that actually continues until they progress; is that called maintenance if you’re getting ongoing cycles? Not sure what to call it, but this is quite myelosuppressive, and there are many, many postremission modifications in dose and schedule that could take up a whole separate lecture,” Dr. Roboz commented.

She added, however, that the combination is effective across nearly all subgroups, and may be more generally applicable for maintenance-style therapy in older patients with AML.
 

Survival benefit

Dr. Roboz was a coinvestigator for the QUAZAR AML-001 trial (NCT01757535), results of which were reported at the 2019 ASH annual meeting. It was the first trial to show that a maintenance therapy with CC-486, an oral formulation of azacitidine, can improve overall survival in patients with AML in remission.

Among 472 patients with poor-risk AML in first complete remission who were not eligible for transplantation, median relapse-free survival was 10.2 months with CC-486 vs. 4.8 months with placebo plus best supportive care, and median overall survival with CC-486 was 24.7 months vs. 14.8 months, an absolute difference of 9.9 months.

This oral formulation of azacitidine was approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1, 2020 for use in adult patients with AML in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive induction chemotherapy and are not able to complete intensive curative therapy. It is sold under the trade name Onureg.

“This is likely to become now the standard of care for AML patients, for the group that was shown to benefit in the clinical trial,” Dr. Roboz said.

The drug was effective at prolonging relapse-free survival regardless of sex, age, remission status (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) at randomization, cytogenetic risk category, or MRD status.

“We were very gratified to see that there was no reduction in health-related quality of life, which meant that the agent was tolerable, it could be continued for multiple cycles, and there are actually patients, including one of mine, who are many years out with ongoing therapy,” she said.

No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Roboz disclosed consultancy/advisory board activity for multiple pharmaceutical companies; data safety and monitoring committee activity for MEI Pharma, Helsinn, and Takeda; and research funding from Cellectis.

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

When researchers arrived in Seeley Lake, Mont., a town tucked in the northern Rockies, 3 years ago, they could still smell the smoke a day after it cleared from devastating wildfires. Their plan was to chart how long it took for people to recover from living for 7 weeks surrounded by relentless smoke.

They still don’t know, because most residents haven’t recovered. In fact, they’ve gotten worse.

Forest fires had funneled hazardous air into Seeley Lake, a town of fewer than 2,000 people, for 49 days. The air quality was so bad that on some days the monitoring stations couldn’t measure the extent of the pollution. The intensity of the smoke and the length of time residents had been trapped in it were unprecedented, prompting county officials to issue their first evacuation orders because of smoke, not fire risk.

Many people stayed. That made Seeley Lake an ideal place to track the long-term health of people inundated by wildfire pollution.

So far, researchers have found that people’s lung capacity declined in the first 2 years after the smoke cleared. Chris Migliaccio, PhD, an immunologist with the University of Montana, Missoula, and associates found the percentage of residents whose lung function sank below normal thresholds more than doubled in the first year after the fire and remained low a year after that.

“There’s something wrong there,” Dr. Migliaccio said.

While it’s long been known that smoke can be dangerous when in the thick of it – triggering asthma attacks, cardiac arrests, hospitalizations and more – the Seeley Lake research confirmed what public health experts feared: Wildfire haze can have consequences long after it’s gone.

That doesn’t bode well for the 78 million people in the western United States now confronting historic wildfires.

Toxic air from fires has blanketed California and the Pacific Northwest for weeks now, causing some of the world’s worst air quality. California fires have burned roughly 2.3 million acres so far this year, and the wildfire season isn’t over yet. Oregon estimates 500,000 people in the state have been under a notice to either prepare to evacuate or leave. Smoke from the West Coast blazes has drifted as far away as Europe.

Extreme wildfires are predicted to become a regular occurrence because of climate change. And, as more people increasingly settle in fire-prone places, the risks increase. That’s shifted wildfires from being a perennial reality for rural mountain towns to becoming an annual threat for areas across the West.

Perry Hystad, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon State University, Corvallis, said the Seeley Lake research offers unique insights into wildfire smoke’s impact, which until recently had largely been unexplored. He said similar studies are likely to follow because of this fire season.

“This is the question that everybody is asking,” Dr. Hystad said. “‘I’ve been sitting in smoke for 2 weeks, how concerned should I be?’”

Dr. Migliaccio wants to know whether the lung damage he saw in Seeley Lake is reversible – or even treatable. (Think of an inhaler for asthma or other medication that prevents swollen airways.)

But those discoveries will have to wait. The team hasn’t been able to return to Seeley Lake this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Migliaccio said more research is needed on whether wildfire smoke damages organs besides the lungs, and whether routine exposure makes people more susceptible to diseases.

The combination of the fire season and the pandemic has spurred other questions as well, like whether heavy smoke exposure could lead to more COVID-19 deaths. A recent study showed a spike in influenza cases following major fire seasons.

“Now you have the combination of flu season and COVID and the wildfires,” Dr. Migliaccio said. “How are all these things going to interact come late fall or winter?”
 

A case study

Seeley Lake has long known smoke. It sits in a narrow valley between vast stretches of thick forests.

On a recent September day, Boyd Gossard stood on his back porch and pointed toward the mountains that were ablaze in 2017.

Mr. Gossard, 80, expects to have some summer days veiled in haze. But that year, he said, he could hardly see his neighbor’s house a few hundred feet away.

“I’ve seen a lot of smoke in my career,” said Mr. Gossard, who worked in timber management and served as a wildland firefighter. “But having to just live in it like this was very different. It got to you after a while.”

When Missoula County health officials urged people to leave town and flee the hazardous smoke, many residents stayed close to home. Some said their jobs wouldn’t let them leave. Others didn’t have a place to go – or the money to get there.

Health officials warned those who stayed to avoid exercising and breathing too hard, to remain inside, and to follow steps to make their homes as smoke free as possible. The health department also worked to get air filters to those who needed them most.

But when flames got too close, some people had to sleep outside in campsites on the other side of town.
 

Understanding the science of smoke

One of the known dangers of smoke is particulate matter. Smaller than the width of a human hair, it can bypass a body’s defenses, lodging deep into lungs. Lu Hu, PhD, an atmospheric chemist with the University of Montana, said air quality reports are based on how much of that pollution is in the air.

“It’s like lead; there’s no safe level, but still we have a safety measure for what’s allowable,” Dr. Hu said. “Some things kill you fast and some things kill you slowly.”

While air quality measurements can gauge the overall amount of pollution, they can’t assess which specific toxins people are inhaling. Dr. Hu is collaborating with other scientists to better predict how smoke travels and what pollutants people actually breathe.

He said smoke’s chemistry changes based on how far it travels and what’s burning, among other factors.

Over the past few years, teams of researchers drove trucks along fire lines to collect smoke samples. Other scientists boarded cargo planes and flew into smoke plumes to take samples right from a fire’s source. Still others stationed at a mountain lookout captured smoke drifting in from nearby fires. And ground-level machines at a Missoula site logged data over 2 summers.

Bob Yokelson, PhD, a longtime smoke researcher with the University of Montana, said scientists are getting closer to understanding its contents. And, he said, “it’s not all bad news.”

Temperature and sunlight can change some pollutants over time. Some dangerous particles seem to disappear. But others, such as ozone, can increase as smoke ages.

Dr. Yokelson said scientists are still a long way from determining a safe level of exposure to the hundred-odd pollutants in smoke.

“We can complete the circle by measuring not only what’s in smoke, but measuring what’s happening to the people who breathe it,” Dr. Yokelson said. “That’s where the future of health research on smoke is going to go.”
 

Coping with nowhere to flee

In the meantime, those studying wildland smoke hope what they’ve learned so far can better prepare people to live in the haze when evacuation isn’t an option.

Joan Wollan, 82, was one of the Seeley Lake study participants. She stayed put during the 2017 fire because her house at the time sat on a border of the evacuation zone. The air made her eyes burn and her husband cough. She ordered air filters to create cleaner air inside her home, which helped.

On a recent day, the air in Mrs. Wollan’s new neighborhood in Missoula turned that familiar gray-orange as traces of fires from elsewhere appeared. Local health officials warned that western Montana could get hit by some of the worst air quality the state had seen since those 2017 fires.

If it got bad enough, Mrs. Wollan said, she’d get the filters out of storage or look for a way to get to cleaner air – “if there is someplace in Montana that isn’t smoky.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

When researchers arrived in Seeley Lake, Mont., a town tucked in the northern Rockies, 3 years ago, they could still smell the smoke a day after it cleared from devastating wildfires. Their plan was to chart how long it took for people to recover from living for 7 weeks surrounded by relentless smoke.

They still don’t know, because most residents haven’t recovered. In fact, they’ve gotten worse.

Forest fires had funneled hazardous air into Seeley Lake, a town of fewer than 2,000 people, for 49 days. The air quality was so bad that on some days the monitoring stations couldn’t measure the extent of the pollution. The intensity of the smoke and the length of time residents had been trapped in it were unprecedented, prompting county officials to issue their first evacuation orders because of smoke, not fire risk.

Many people stayed. That made Seeley Lake an ideal place to track the long-term health of people inundated by wildfire pollution.

So far, researchers have found that people’s lung capacity declined in the first 2 years after the smoke cleared. Chris Migliaccio, PhD, an immunologist with the University of Montana, Missoula, and associates found the percentage of residents whose lung function sank below normal thresholds more than doubled in the first year after the fire and remained low a year after that.

“There’s something wrong there,” Dr. Migliaccio said.

While it’s long been known that smoke can be dangerous when in the thick of it – triggering asthma attacks, cardiac arrests, hospitalizations and more – the Seeley Lake research confirmed what public health experts feared: Wildfire haze can have consequences long after it’s gone.

That doesn’t bode well for the 78 million people in the western United States now confronting historic wildfires.

Toxic air from fires has blanketed California and the Pacific Northwest for weeks now, causing some of the world’s worst air quality. California fires have burned roughly 2.3 million acres so far this year, and the wildfire season isn’t over yet. Oregon estimates 500,000 people in the state have been under a notice to either prepare to evacuate or leave. Smoke from the West Coast blazes has drifted as far away as Europe.

Extreme wildfires are predicted to become a regular occurrence because of climate change. And, as more people increasingly settle in fire-prone places, the risks increase. That’s shifted wildfires from being a perennial reality for rural mountain towns to becoming an annual threat for areas across the West.

Perry Hystad, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon State University, Corvallis, said the Seeley Lake research offers unique insights into wildfire smoke’s impact, which until recently had largely been unexplored. He said similar studies are likely to follow because of this fire season.

“This is the question that everybody is asking,” Dr. Hystad said. “‘I’ve been sitting in smoke for 2 weeks, how concerned should I be?’”

Dr. Migliaccio wants to know whether the lung damage he saw in Seeley Lake is reversible – or even treatable. (Think of an inhaler for asthma or other medication that prevents swollen airways.)

But those discoveries will have to wait. The team hasn’t been able to return to Seeley Lake this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Migliaccio said more research is needed on whether wildfire smoke damages organs besides the lungs, and whether routine exposure makes people more susceptible to diseases.

The combination of the fire season and the pandemic has spurred other questions as well, like whether heavy smoke exposure could lead to more COVID-19 deaths. A recent study showed a spike in influenza cases following major fire seasons.

“Now you have the combination of flu season and COVID and the wildfires,” Dr. Migliaccio said. “How are all these things going to interact come late fall or winter?”
 

A case study

Seeley Lake has long known smoke. It sits in a narrow valley between vast stretches of thick forests.

On a recent September day, Boyd Gossard stood on his back porch and pointed toward the mountains that were ablaze in 2017.

Mr. Gossard, 80, expects to have some summer days veiled in haze. But that year, he said, he could hardly see his neighbor’s house a few hundred feet away.

“I’ve seen a lot of smoke in my career,” said Mr. Gossard, who worked in timber management and served as a wildland firefighter. “But having to just live in it like this was very different. It got to you after a while.”

When Missoula County health officials urged people to leave town and flee the hazardous smoke, many residents stayed close to home. Some said their jobs wouldn’t let them leave. Others didn’t have a place to go – or the money to get there.

Health officials warned those who stayed to avoid exercising and breathing too hard, to remain inside, and to follow steps to make their homes as smoke free as possible. The health department also worked to get air filters to those who needed them most.

But when flames got too close, some people had to sleep outside in campsites on the other side of town.
 

Understanding the science of smoke

One of the known dangers of smoke is particulate matter. Smaller than the width of a human hair, it can bypass a body’s defenses, lodging deep into lungs. Lu Hu, PhD, an atmospheric chemist with the University of Montana, said air quality reports are based on how much of that pollution is in the air.

“It’s like lead; there’s no safe level, but still we have a safety measure for what’s allowable,” Dr. Hu said. “Some things kill you fast and some things kill you slowly.”

While air quality measurements can gauge the overall amount of pollution, they can’t assess which specific toxins people are inhaling. Dr. Hu is collaborating with other scientists to better predict how smoke travels and what pollutants people actually breathe.

He said smoke’s chemistry changes based on how far it travels and what’s burning, among other factors.

Over the past few years, teams of researchers drove trucks along fire lines to collect smoke samples. Other scientists boarded cargo planes and flew into smoke plumes to take samples right from a fire’s source. Still others stationed at a mountain lookout captured smoke drifting in from nearby fires. And ground-level machines at a Missoula site logged data over 2 summers.

Bob Yokelson, PhD, a longtime smoke researcher with the University of Montana, said scientists are getting closer to understanding its contents. And, he said, “it’s not all bad news.”

Temperature and sunlight can change some pollutants over time. Some dangerous particles seem to disappear. But others, such as ozone, can increase as smoke ages.

Dr. Yokelson said scientists are still a long way from determining a safe level of exposure to the hundred-odd pollutants in smoke.

“We can complete the circle by measuring not only what’s in smoke, but measuring what’s happening to the people who breathe it,” Dr. Yokelson said. “That’s where the future of health research on smoke is going to go.”
 

Coping with nowhere to flee

In the meantime, those studying wildland smoke hope what they’ve learned so far can better prepare people to live in the haze when evacuation isn’t an option.

Joan Wollan, 82, was one of the Seeley Lake study participants. She stayed put during the 2017 fire because her house at the time sat on a border of the evacuation zone. The air made her eyes burn and her husband cough. She ordered air filters to create cleaner air inside her home, which helped.

On a recent day, the air in Mrs. Wollan’s new neighborhood in Missoula turned that familiar gray-orange as traces of fires from elsewhere appeared. Local health officials warned that western Montana could get hit by some of the worst air quality the state had seen since those 2017 fires.

If it got bad enough, Mrs. Wollan said, she’d get the filters out of storage or look for a way to get to cleaner air – “if there is someplace in Montana that isn’t smoky.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

When researchers arrived in Seeley Lake, Mont., a town tucked in the northern Rockies, 3 years ago, they could still smell the smoke a day after it cleared from devastating wildfires. Their plan was to chart how long it took for people to recover from living for 7 weeks surrounded by relentless smoke.

They still don’t know, because most residents haven’t recovered. In fact, they’ve gotten worse.

Forest fires had funneled hazardous air into Seeley Lake, a town of fewer than 2,000 people, for 49 days. The air quality was so bad that on some days the monitoring stations couldn’t measure the extent of the pollution. The intensity of the smoke and the length of time residents had been trapped in it were unprecedented, prompting county officials to issue their first evacuation orders because of smoke, not fire risk.

Many people stayed. That made Seeley Lake an ideal place to track the long-term health of people inundated by wildfire pollution.

So far, researchers have found that people’s lung capacity declined in the first 2 years after the smoke cleared. Chris Migliaccio, PhD, an immunologist with the University of Montana, Missoula, and associates found the percentage of residents whose lung function sank below normal thresholds more than doubled in the first year after the fire and remained low a year after that.

“There’s something wrong there,” Dr. Migliaccio said.

While it’s long been known that smoke can be dangerous when in the thick of it – triggering asthma attacks, cardiac arrests, hospitalizations and more – the Seeley Lake research confirmed what public health experts feared: Wildfire haze can have consequences long after it’s gone.

That doesn’t bode well for the 78 million people in the western United States now confronting historic wildfires.

Toxic air from fires has blanketed California and the Pacific Northwest for weeks now, causing some of the world’s worst air quality. California fires have burned roughly 2.3 million acres so far this year, and the wildfire season isn’t over yet. Oregon estimates 500,000 people in the state have been under a notice to either prepare to evacuate or leave. Smoke from the West Coast blazes has drifted as far away as Europe.

Extreme wildfires are predicted to become a regular occurrence because of climate change. And, as more people increasingly settle in fire-prone places, the risks increase. That’s shifted wildfires from being a perennial reality for rural mountain towns to becoming an annual threat for areas across the West.

Perry Hystad, PhD, an associate professor at Oregon State University, Corvallis, said the Seeley Lake research offers unique insights into wildfire smoke’s impact, which until recently had largely been unexplored. He said similar studies are likely to follow because of this fire season.

“This is the question that everybody is asking,” Dr. Hystad said. “‘I’ve been sitting in smoke for 2 weeks, how concerned should I be?’”

Dr. Migliaccio wants to know whether the lung damage he saw in Seeley Lake is reversible – or even treatable. (Think of an inhaler for asthma or other medication that prevents swollen airways.)

But those discoveries will have to wait. The team hasn’t been able to return to Seeley Lake this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr. Migliaccio said more research is needed on whether wildfire smoke damages organs besides the lungs, and whether routine exposure makes people more susceptible to diseases.

The combination of the fire season and the pandemic has spurred other questions as well, like whether heavy smoke exposure could lead to more COVID-19 deaths. A recent study showed a spike in influenza cases following major fire seasons.

“Now you have the combination of flu season and COVID and the wildfires,” Dr. Migliaccio said. “How are all these things going to interact come late fall or winter?”
 

A case study

Seeley Lake has long known smoke. It sits in a narrow valley between vast stretches of thick forests.

On a recent September day, Boyd Gossard stood on his back porch and pointed toward the mountains that were ablaze in 2017.

Mr. Gossard, 80, expects to have some summer days veiled in haze. But that year, he said, he could hardly see his neighbor’s house a few hundred feet away.

“I’ve seen a lot of smoke in my career,” said Mr. Gossard, who worked in timber management and served as a wildland firefighter. “But having to just live in it like this was very different. It got to you after a while.”

When Missoula County health officials urged people to leave town and flee the hazardous smoke, many residents stayed close to home. Some said their jobs wouldn’t let them leave. Others didn’t have a place to go – or the money to get there.

Health officials warned those who stayed to avoid exercising and breathing too hard, to remain inside, and to follow steps to make their homes as smoke free as possible. The health department also worked to get air filters to those who needed them most.

But when flames got too close, some people had to sleep outside in campsites on the other side of town.
 

Understanding the science of smoke

One of the known dangers of smoke is particulate matter. Smaller than the width of a human hair, it can bypass a body’s defenses, lodging deep into lungs. Lu Hu, PhD, an atmospheric chemist with the University of Montana, said air quality reports are based on how much of that pollution is in the air.

“It’s like lead; there’s no safe level, but still we have a safety measure for what’s allowable,” Dr. Hu said. “Some things kill you fast and some things kill you slowly.”

While air quality measurements can gauge the overall amount of pollution, they can’t assess which specific toxins people are inhaling. Dr. Hu is collaborating with other scientists to better predict how smoke travels and what pollutants people actually breathe.

He said smoke’s chemistry changes based on how far it travels and what’s burning, among other factors.

Over the past few years, teams of researchers drove trucks along fire lines to collect smoke samples. Other scientists boarded cargo planes and flew into smoke plumes to take samples right from a fire’s source. Still others stationed at a mountain lookout captured smoke drifting in from nearby fires. And ground-level machines at a Missoula site logged data over 2 summers.

Bob Yokelson, PhD, a longtime smoke researcher with the University of Montana, said scientists are getting closer to understanding its contents. And, he said, “it’s not all bad news.”

Temperature and sunlight can change some pollutants over time. Some dangerous particles seem to disappear. But others, such as ozone, can increase as smoke ages.

Dr. Yokelson said scientists are still a long way from determining a safe level of exposure to the hundred-odd pollutants in smoke.

“We can complete the circle by measuring not only what’s in smoke, but measuring what’s happening to the people who breathe it,” Dr. Yokelson said. “That’s where the future of health research on smoke is going to go.”
 

Coping with nowhere to flee

In the meantime, those studying wildland smoke hope what they’ve learned so far can better prepare people to live in the haze when evacuation isn’t an option.

Joan Wollan, 82, was one of the Seeley Lake study participants. She stayed put during the 2017 fire because her house at the time sat on a border of the evacuation zone. The air made her eyes burn and her husband cough. She ordered air filters to create cleaner air inside her home, which helped.

On a recent day, the air in Mrs. Wollan’s new neighborhood in Missoula turned that familiar gray-orange as traces of fires from elsewhere appeared. Local health officials warned that western Montana could get hit by some of the worst air quality the state had seen since those 2017 fires.

If it got bad enough, Mrs. Wollan said, she’d get the filters out of storage or look for a way to get to cleaner air – “if there is someplace in Montana that isn’t smoky.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald. 

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.

Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.

But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.

The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.

Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.

“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a  health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.

Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.

Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.

The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”

The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.

The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.

Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.

The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.

But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.

“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”

Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.

Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.

For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.

About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.

The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.

The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.

The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.

Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”

The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.

Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.

The second program would be geared to the broader state population.

In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.

“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.

Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.

Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.

Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.

However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.

Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.

“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.

Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.

Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.

“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald.