Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.¹

We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. Evidence in other countries indicates that appropriate, thoughtful education can reduce the stillbirth rate. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
 

Myth one: Kick counts

When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.² Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.

Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy

There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).³ A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.⁴ We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.

Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation

A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.⁵ Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.⁶

When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.^7,8

Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern

I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.⁹ In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.

Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth

Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.¹⁰ However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.¹¹ We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.

Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement

The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,⁸ Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.

Conclusions

When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.¹⁴

Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
 

Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.

2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.

3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.

4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.

5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.

6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.

7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.

8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.

10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.

11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.

12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.

13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.

14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.

I vividly remember the conversation that changed the way I practice medicine today.

During my medicine residency rounds, my attending at a Veterans Affairs hospital stated: “Remember Swati, there are three simple steps to gain your patients’ trust. The three questions they have are: No. 1, who are you? No. 2, are you any good? No. 3, do you really care about me?”

The first two questions are easier to address. The third question requires us bare our authentic human self often hiding behind our white coat and medical degree.

Who are you?

• Introduce yourself (everyone is wearing scrubs/white coats – state your full name and title)
• Describe your role in patient’s care plan
• Hand them your card (your name, photo, and a short description of the role of a hospitalist)

Are you any good?

• Briefly address your professional experience
• Explicitly state all the hard work you have done prior to entering the patient’s room (reviewing past medical records, hand off from ED provider or prior hospitalist)
• State your aim to collaborate with all people involved – their primary care provider, nurse, consultant

“Hello Mrs. Jones, my name is Dr. Swati Mehta. I will be your physician today. As a hospitalist, my role is to take care of your medical needs & worries. I will coordinate with your consultants, primary care physician, and other care teams to get you the answers you need. I have been working at XYZ Hospital for 6 years and have over 12 years of experience in medicine taking care of patients. I have reviewed your medical records, blood work, and x-rays before coming in. How are you feeling today? Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

Addressing the third question – Do you really care about me? – is the foundation of every human interaction. Answering this question involves addressing our patients’ many fears: Do you care about what I think is going on with my disease? Will you judge me by my socioeconomic status, gender, color of my skin, or addictions? Am I safe to open up and trust you? Are we equal partners in my health care journey? Do you really care?

A successful connection is achieved when we create a space of psychological safety and mutual respect. Once that happens, our patients open up to let us in their world and become more amenable to our opinion and recommendations. That is when true healing begins.

The “6H model” is an aide to form a strong human-centric connection.
 

The 6H model: Human connection with patients

Looking back at each patient interaction, good or bad, I have had in my almost 2 decades of practicing clinical medicine, the 6H model has brought me closer to my patients. We have formed a bond which has helped them navigate their arduous hospital journey, including medical and financial burdens, social and emotional needs. Utilizing this model, we were fortunate to receive the highest HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey scores for 3 consecutive years while I served as the medical director of a 40-provider hospitalist program in a busy 450-bed hospital in Oregon.

Dr. Mehta is director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif., and vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee.

I vividly remember the conversation that changed the way I practice medicine today.

During my medicine residency rounds, my attending at a Veterans Affairs hospital stated: “Remember Swati, there are three simple steps to gain your patients’ trust. The three questions they have are: No. 1, who are you? No. 2, are you any good? No. 3, do you really care about me?”

The first two questions are easier to address. The third question requires us bare our authentic human self often hiding behind our white coat and medical degree.

Who are you?

• Introduce yourself (everyone is wearing scrubs/white coats – state your full name and title)
• Describe your role in patient’s care plan
• Hand them your card (your name, photo, and a short description of the role of a hospitalist)

Are you any good?

• Briefly address your professional experience
• Explicitly state all the hard work you have done prior to entering the patient’s room (reviewing past medical records, hand off from ED provider or prior hospitalist)
• State your aim to collaborate with all people involved – their primary care provider, nurse, consultant

“Hello Mrs. Jones, my name is Dr. Swati Mehta. I will be your physician today. As a hospitalist, my role is to take care of your medical needs & worries. I will coordinate with your consultants, primary care physician, and other care teams to get you the answers you need. I have been working at XYZ Hospital for 6 years and have over 12 years of experience in medicine taking care of patients. I have reviewed your medical records, blood work, and x-rays before coming in. How are you feeling today? Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

Addressing the third question – Do you really care about me? – is the foundation of every human interaction. Answering this question involves addressing our patients’ many fears: Do you care about what I think is going on with my disease? Will you judge me by my socioeconomic status, gender, color of my skin, or addictions? Am I safe to open up and trust you? Are we equal partners in my health care journey? Do you really care?

A successful connection is achieved when we create a space of psychological safety and mutual respect. Once that happens, our patients open up to let us in their world and become more amenable to our opinion and recommendations. That is when true healing begins.

The “6H model” is an aide to form a strong human-centric connection.
 

The 6H model: Human connection with patients

Looking back at each patient interaction, good or bad, I have had in my almost 2 decades of practicing clinical medicine, the 6H model has brought me closer to my patients. We have formed a bond which has helped them navigate their arduous hospital journey, including medical and financial burdens, social and emotional needs. Utilizing this model, we were fortunate to receive the highest HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey scores for 3 consecutive years while I served as the medical director of a 40-provider hospitalist program in a busy 450-bed hospital in Oregon.

Dr. Mehta is director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif., and vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee.

I vividly remember the conversation that changed the way I practice medicine today.

During my medicine residency rounds, my attending at a Veterans Affairs hospital stated: “Remember Swati, there are three simple steps to gain your patients’ trust. The three questions they have are: No. 1, who are you? No. 2, are you any good? No. 3, do you really care about me?”

The first two questions are easier to address. The third question requires us bare our authentic human self often hiding behind our white coat and medical degree.

Who are you?

• Introduce yourself (everyone is wearing scrubs/white coats – state your full name and title)
• Describe your role in patient’s care plan
• Hand them your card (your name, photo, and a short description of the role of a hospitalist)

Are you any good?

• Briefly address your professional experience
• Explicitly state all the hard work you have done prior to entering the patient’s room (reviewing past medical records, hand off from ED provider or prior hospitalist)
• State your aim to collaborate with all people involved – their primary care provider, nurse, consultant

“Hello Mrs. Jones, my name is Dr. Swati Mehta. I will be your physician today. As a hospitalist, my role is to take care of your medical needs & worries. I will coordinate with your consultants, primary care physician, and other care teams to get you the answers you need. I have been working at XYZ Hospital for 6 years and have over 12 years of experience in medicine taking care of patients. I have reviewed your medical records, blood work, and x-rays before coming in. How are you feeling today? Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?”

Addressing the third question – Do you really care about me? – is the foundation of every human interaction. Answering this question involves addressing our patients’ many fears: Do you care about what I think is going on with my disease? Will you judge me by my socioeconomic status, gender, color of my skin, or addictions? Am I safe to open up and trust you? Are we equal partners in my health care journey? Do you really care?

A successful connection is achieved when we create a space of psychological safety and mutual respect. Once that happens, our patients open up to let us in their world and become more amenable to our opinion and recommendations. That is when true healing begins.

The “6H model” is an aide to form a strong human-centric connection.
 

The 6H model: Human connection with patients

Looking back at each patient interaction, good or bad, I have had in my almost 2 decades of practicing clinical medicine, the 6H model has brought me closer to my patients. We have formed a bond which has helped them navigate their arduous hospital journey, including medical and financial burdens, social and emotional needs. Utilizing this model, we were fortunate to receive the highest HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey scores for 3 consecutive years while I served as the medical director of a 40-provider hospitalist program in a busy 450-bed hospital in Oregon.

Dr. Mehta is director of quality & performance and patient experience at Vituity in Emeryville, Calif., and vice chair of the SHM patient experience committee.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a huge toll on mental health in the United States, according to results of a survey released Aug. 13 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During late June, about two in five U.S. adults surveyed said they were struggling with mental health or substance use. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and those with preexisting psychiatric conditions were suffering the most.

“Addressing mental health disparities and preparing support systems to mitigate mental health consequences as the pandemic evolves will continue to be needed urgently,” write Rashon Lane, with the CDC COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues in an article published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

During the period of June 24-30, 2020, 5,412 U.S. adults aged 18 and older completed online surveys that gauged mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation.

Overall, 40.9% of respondents reported having at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition; 31% reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder; and 26% reported symptoms of a trauma- and stressor-related disorder related to the pandemic.

The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety disorder alone was roughly three times that reported in the second quarter of 2019, the authors noted.

In addition, roughly 13% of respondents said that they started using substances or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19, and nearly 11% reported having seriously considered suicide in the preceding 30 days.

Approximately twice as many respondents reported seriously considering suicide in the prior month compared with adults in the United States in 2018 (referring to the previous 12 months), the authors noted.

Suicidal ideation was significantly higher among younger respondents (aged 18-24 years, 26%), Hispanic persons (19%), non-Hispanic Black persons (15%), unpaid caregivers for adults (31%), and essential workers (22%).

The survey results are in line with recent data from Mental Health America, which indicate dramatic increases in depression, anxiety, and suicidality since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The “markedly elevated” prevalence of adverse mental and behavioral health conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the “broad impact of the pandemic and the need to prevent and treat these conditions,” the researchers wrote.

The survey also highlights populations at increased risk for psychological distress and unhealthy coping.

“Future studies should identify drivers of adverse mental and behavioral health during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether factors such as social isolation, absence of school structure, unemployment and other financial worries, and various forms of violence (e.g., physical, emotional, mental, or sexual abuse) serve as additional stressors,” they suggested.

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

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a huge toll on mental health in the United States, according to results of a survey released Aug. 13 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During late June, about two in five U.S. adults surveyed said they were struggling with mental health or substance use. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and those with preexisting psychiatric conditions were suffering the most.

“Addressing mental health disparities and preparing support systems to mitigate mental health consequences as the pandemic evolves will continue to be needed urgently,” write Rashon Lane, with the CDC COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues in an article published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

During the period of June 24-30, 2020, 5,412 U.S. adults aged 18 and older completed online surveys that gauged mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation.

Overall, 40.9% of respondents reported having at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition; 31% reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder; and 26% reported symptoms of a trauma- and stressor-related disorder related to the pandemic.

The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety disorder alone was roughly three times that reported in the second quarter of 2019, the authors noted.

In addition, roughly 13% of respondents said that they started using substances or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19, and nearly 11% reported having seriously considered suicide in the preceding 30 days.

Approximately twice as many respondents reported seriously considering suicide in the prior month compared with adults in the United States in 2018 (referring to the previous 12 months), the authors noted.

Suicidal ideation was significantly higher among younger respondents (aged 18-24 years, 26%), Hispanic persons (19%), non-Hispanic Black persons (15%), unpaid caregivers for adults (31%), and essential workers (22%).

The survey results are in line with recent data from Mental Health America, which indicate dramatic increases in depression, anxiety, and suicidality since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The “markedly elevated” prevalence of adverse mental and behavioral health conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the “broad impact of the pandemic and the need to prevent and treat these conditions,” the researchers wrote.

The survey also highlights populations at increased risk for psychological distress and unhealthy coping.

“Future studies should identify drivers of adverse mental and behavioral health during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether factors such as social isolation, absence of school structure, unemployment and other financial worries, and various forms of violence (e.g., physical, emotional, mental, or sexual abuse) serve as additional stressors,” they suggested.

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

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a huge toll on mental health in the United States, according to results of a survey released Aug. 13 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During late June, about two in five U.S. adults surveyed said they were struggling with mental health or substance use. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and those with preexisting psychiatric conditions were suffering the most.

“Addressing mental health disparities and preparing support systems to mitigate mental health consequences as the pandemic evolves will continue to be needed urgently,” write Rashon Lane, with the CDC COVID-19 Response Team, and colleagues in an article published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

During the period of June 24-30, 2020, 5,412 U.S. adults aged 18 and older completed online surveys that gauged mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation.

Overall, 40.9% of respondents reported having at least one adverse mental or behavioral health condition; 31% reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder; and 26% reported symptoms of a trauma- and stressor-related disorder related to the pandemic.

The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety disorder alone was roughly three times that reported in the second quarter of 2019, the authors noted.

In addition, roughly 13% of respondents said that they started using substances or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19, and nearly 11% reported having seriously considered suicide in the preceding 30 days.

Approximately twice as many respondents reported seriously considering suicide in the prior month compared with adults in the United States in 2018 (referring to the previous 12 months), the authors noted.

Suicidal ideation was significantly higher among younger respondents (aged 18-24 years, 26%), Hispanic persons (19%), non-Hispanic Black persons (15%), unpaid caregivers for adults (31%), and essential workers (22%).

The survey results are in line with recent data from Mental Health America, which indicate dramatic increases in depression, anxiety, and suicidality since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The “markedly elevated” prevalence of adverse mental and behavioral health conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the “broad impact of the pandemic and the need to prevent and treat these conditions,” the researchers wrote.

The survey also highlights populations at increased risk for psychological distress and unhealthy coping.

“Future studies should identify drivers of adverse mental and behavioral health during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether factors such as social isolation, absence of school structure, unemployment and other financial worries, and various forms of violence (e.g., physical, emotional, mental, or sexual abuse) serve as additional stressors,” they suggested.

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

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

Accumulating observational data suggest that metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes might reduce the risk for death from COVID-19, but the randomized trials needed to prove this are unlikely to be carried out, according to experts.

The latest results, which are not yet peer reviewed, were published online July 31. The study was conducted by Andrew B. Crouse, PhD, of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.

The researchers found that among more than 600 patients with diabetes and COVID-19, use of metformin was associated with a nearly 70% reduction in mortality after adjustment for multiple confounders.

Data from four previous studies that also show a reduction in mortality among metformin users compared to nonusers were summarized in a “mini review” by André J. Scheen, MD, PhD, published Aug. 1 in Diabetes and Metabolism.

Dr. Scheen, of the division of diabetes, nutrition, and metabolic disorders and the division of clinical pharmacology at Liège (Belgium) University, discussed possible mechanisms behind this observation.

“Because metformin exerts various effects beyond its glucose-lowering action, among which are anti-inflammatory effects, it may be speculated that this biguanide might positively influence the prognosis of patients with [type 2 diabetes] hospitalized for COVID-19,” he said.

“However, given the potential confounders inherently found in observational studies, caution is required before drawing any firm conclusions in the absence of randomized controlled trials,” Dr. Scheen wrote.

Indeed, when asked to comment, endocrinologist Kasia Lipska, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview: “Metformin users tend to do better in many different settings with respect to many different outcomes. To me, it is still unclear whether metformin is truly a miracle drug or whether it is simply used more often among people who are healthier and who do not have contraindications to its use.”

She added, “I don’t think we have enough data to suggest metformin use for COVID-19 mitigation at this point.”

Alabama authors say confounding effects ‘unlikely’

In the retrospective analysis of electronic health records from their institution, Dr. Crouse and colleagues reviewed data from 604 patients who were confirmed to have tested positive for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and June 22, 2020. Of those individuals, 40% had diabetes.

Death occurred in 11% (n = 67); the odds ratio (OR) for death among those with, vs. without, diabetes was 3.62 (P < .0001).

Individuals with diabetes accounted for >60% of all deaths. In multiple logistic regression, age 50-70 vs. <50, male sex, and diabetes emerged as independent predictors of death.

Of the 42 patients with diabetes who died, 8 (19%) had used metformin, and 34 (81%) had not*, a significant difference (OR, 0.38; P = .0221). Insulin use, on the other hand, had no effect on mortality (P = .5728).

“In fact, with 11% [being] the mortality of metformin users, [this] was comparable to that of the general COVID-19-positive population and dramatically lower than the 23% mortality observed in subjects with diabetes and not on metformin,” the authors said.

The survival benefit observed with metformin remained after exclusion of patients with classic metformin contraindications, such as chronic kidney disease and heart failure (OR, 0.17; P = .0231).

“This makes any potential confounding effects from skewing metformin users toward healthier subjects without these additional comorbidities very unlikely,” Dr. Crouse and colleagues contended.

After further analysis that controlled for other covariates (age, sex, obesity status, and hypertension), age, sex, and metformin use remained independent predictors of mortality.

For metformin, the odds ratio was 0.33 (P = .0210).

But, Dr. Lipska pointed out, “Observational studies can take into account confounders that are measured. However, unmeasured confounders may still affect the conclusions of these studies ... Propensity score matching to account for the likelihood of use of metformin could be used to better account for differences between metformin users and nonusers.”

If metformin does reduce COVID-19 deaths, multiple mechanisms likely

In his article, Dr. Scheen noted that several mechanisms have been proposed for the possible beneficial effect of metformin on COVID-19 outcomes, including direct improvements in glucose control, body weight, and insulin resistance; reduction in inflammation; inhibition of virus penetration via phosphorylation of ACE2; inhibition of an immune hyperactivation pathway; and neutrophil reduction. All remain theoretical, he emphasized.

He noted that some authors have raised concerns about possible harms from the use of metformin by patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized for COVID-19, particularly because of the potential risk for lactic acidosis in cases of multiple organ failure.

In totality, four studies suggest 25% death reduction with metformin

Taken together, the four observational studies that Dr. Scheen reviewed showed that metformin had a positive effect, with an overall 25% reduction in death (P < .00001), albeit with relatively high heterogeneity (I² = 61%).

The largest of these, from the United States, included 6,256 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and involved propensity matching. A significant reduction in mortality with metformin use was seen in women but not men (odds ratio, 0.759).

The French Coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes (CORONADO) study of 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to 53 French hospitals also showed a significant survival benefit for metformin, although the study wasn’t designed to address that issue.

In that study, the odds ratio for death on day 7 in prior metformin users compared to nonusers was 0.59. This finding lost significance but remained a trend after full adjustments (0.80).

Two smaller observational studies produced similar trends toward survival benefit with metformin.

Nonetheless, Dr. Scheen cautioned: “Firm conclusions about the impact of metformin therapy can only be drawn from double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and such trials are almost impossible in the context of COVID-19.”

He added: “Because metformin is out of patent and very inexpensive, no pharmaceutical company is likely to be interested in planning a study to demonstrate the benefits of metformin on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes.”

Dr. Lipska agreed: “RCTs are unlikely to be conducted to settle these issues. In their absence, metformin use should be based on its safety and effectiveness profile.”

Dr. Scheen concluded, however, that “there are at least no negative safety indications, so there is no reason to stop metformin therapy during COVID-19 infection except in cases of severe gastrointestinal symptoms, hypoxia and/or multiple organ failure.”

Dr. Lipska has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and works under contract for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop publicly reported quality measures. Dr. Scheen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

*A previous version reversed these two outcomes in error. 

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As mask mandates have increased, some people are looking for a way around the rules by asking doctors for medical excuses to opt out of wearing one.

filadendron/E+

In the last 2 months, at least 10 patients have asked Constantine George, MD, for a written medical exemption so they won’t have to wear a mask in public. Dr. George, the chief medical officer of Vedius, an app for a travelers’ concierge medical service in Las Vegas, turned them all down.

Elena Christofides, MD, an endocrinologist in Columbus, Ohio, has also refused patients’ requests for exemptions.

“It’s very rare for someone to need an exemption,” says Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association and a lung specialist at ChristianaCare Health System in Newark, Del.

The opposition is sometimes strong. Recently, a video of Lenka Koloma of Laguna Niguel, Calif., who founded the antimask Freedom to Breathe Agency, went viral. She was in a California supermarket, maskless, telling an employee she was breaking the law by requiring patrons to wear masks.

“People need oxygen,” she said. “That alone is a medical condition.” Her webpage has a “Face Mask Exempt Card” that cites the Americans with Disabilities Act and posts a Department of Justice ADA violation reporting number. The DOJ issued a statement calling the cards fraudulent.

Figuring out if a patient’s request to opt out of wearing a mask is legitimate is a ‘’new frontier” for doctors, says Mical Raz, MD, a professor in public policy and health at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and a hospitalist at the university medical center.
 

Should some people skip masks?

Experts say there are very few medical reasons for people to skip masks. “If you look at the research, patients with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder], those with reactive airway, even those can breathe through a mask,” Dr. George said. Requests for exemptions due to medical reasons are usually without basis. “Obviously, if someone is incapacitated, for example, with mental health issues, that’s case by case.”

Dr. Christofides said one of her patients cited anxiety and the other cited headaches as reasons not to wear a mask. “I told the one who asked for anxiety [reasons] that she could wear ones that were less tight.” The patient with headaches told Dr. Christofides that she had a buildup of carbon dioxide in the mask because of industrial exposure. Baloney, Dr. Christofides told her.

Dr. Rizzo says one rare example of someone who can’t wear a mask might be a patient with an advanced lung condition so severe, they need extra oxygen. “These are the extreme patients where any change in oxygen and carbon dioxide could make a difference,” he said. But “that’s also the population that shouldn’t be going out in the first place.”

Dr. Raz cowrote a commentary about mask exemptions, saying doctors are faced with difficult decisions and must keep a delicate balance between public health and individual disability needs. “Inappropriate medical exemptions may inadvertently hasten viral spread and threaten public health,” she wrote.

In an interview, she says that some people do have a hard time tolerating a mask. “Probably the most common reasons are mental health issues, such as anxiety, panic and PTSD, and children with sensory processing disorders (making them oversensitive to their environment). I think there are very few pulmonary reasons.”
 

CDC, professional organization guidelines

The CDC says people should wear masks in public and when around people who don’t live in the same household. Beyond that, it simply says masks should not be worn by children under age 2, “or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.”

In mid-July, four professional organizations released a statement in response to the CDC recommendation for facial coverings. Jointly issued by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society and the COPD Foundation, it states in part that people with normal lungs and “even many individuals with underlying chronic lung disease should be able to wear a non-N95 facial covering without affecting their oxygen or carbon dioxide levels.”

It acknowledges that some people will seek an exemption and doctors must weigh the patient’s concerns against the need to stop the spread of the virus. “In some instances, physician reassurance regarding the safety of the facial coverings may be all that is needed,” it states.
 

Addressing the excuses

Here are some of the common medical reasons people give for not being able to tolerate a mask:

Claustrophobia or anxiety. Dr. Raz and others suggests a “desensitizing” period, wearing the mask for longer and longer periods of time to get used to it. Parents could suggest kids wear a mask when doing something they like, such as watching television, so they equate it with something pleasant. Switching to a different kind of mask or one that fits better could also help.

Masks cause Legionnaires’ disease. Not true, experts say. Legionnaires’ is a severe form of pneumonia, the result of inhaling tiny water droplets with legionella bacteria.

It’s difficult to read lips. People can buy masks with a clear window that makes their mouth and lips visible.

Trouble breathing. Brief periods of mask use won’t have a bad effect on oxygen levels for most people.

“There is not an inherent right to be out in a pandemic with an unmasked face,” Dr. Raz says. But “you are entitled to an accommodation.” That might be using curbside pickup for food and medication. That requires much less time wearing a mask than entering a store would.

There are no “boilerplate” cards or letters to excuse people provided by the four organizations that addressed the issue, Dr. Rizzo said. If he were to write a letter asking for an exemption, he would personalize it for an individual patient’s medical condition. As to whether a state would honor it, he cannot say. The states have a patchwork of recommendations, making it difficult to say.

Dr. Rizzo tells lung disease patients who are able to go out that wearing a mask for 15-20 minutes to do an errand won’t harm their oxygen levels. And he reminds them that having an exemption, in the form of a doctor’s letter, may bring more problems. “Even with an exemption, someone may confront them” for their lack of a face covering. People with COPD have a higher risk of getting a severe illness from COVID-19, according to the CDC.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

AGA offers guidance on a gluten free diet for patients with celiac disease in the AGA GI Patient Center at http://ow.ly/Wu8F30r4phT. 

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

AGA offers guidance on a gluten free diet for patients with celiac disease in the AGA GI Patient Center at http://ow.ly/Wu8F30r4phT. 

To retain the label of “gluten free,” manufacturers of foods that are fermented and hydrolyzed, or that contain fermented or hydrolyzed ingredients, must make and keep detailed records of the manufacturing and production process, according to a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In an announcement released on Aug. 12, the FDA stated that manufacturers must confirm that food products such as soy sauce, yogurt, sauerkraut, pickles, cheese, and green olives, as well as distilled foods such as vinegar, meet the definition of gluten free before the fermentation or hydrolysis process. In addition, the rule states that “the manufacturer has adequately evaluated the potential for cross-contact with gluten during the manufacturing process; and if necessary, measures are in place to prevent the introduction of gluten into the food during the manufacturing process,” according to the FDA.

Gluten breaks down during fermentation and hydrolysis, and the gluten-free status of products manufactured in this way can’t be confirmed after the process using currently available methods, according to the FDA.

The new rule is designed to ensure that products labeled as gluten-free meet the definition of gluten free, which remains unchanged from the FDA guidance in 2013.

“The FDA continues to work to protect people with celiac disease, which impacts at least 3 million Americans,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“The agency has taken a number of steps on this front by first establishing a standardized definition of gluten free, and now by continuing to work to ensure manufacturers are keeping the products that are labeled with this claim gluten free,” he emphasized.

The final rule states that manufacturers will not need to keep such records if and when other analytical methods are developed, but in the meantime products that do not meet the definition will be deemed misbranded, according to the FDA.

AGA offers guidance on a gluten free diet for patients with celiac disease in the AGA GI Patient Center at http://ow.ly/Wu8F30r4phT. 

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Click to Read

In this two-part supplement to CHEST Physician, Brett Bade, MD, (Yale School of Medicine) and Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP (Medical University of South Carolina) discuss the role that pulmonologists play in lung cancer treatment as well as the clinical relevance of biomarkers.

The content in this supplement is based on proceedings from the Lung Cancer Summit hosted by the American College of Chest Physicians last July. The summit successfully fostered key relationships between clinicians, educators, scientists, advocacy groups, payers, and government entities. Attendees identified opportunities to align efforts toward moving forward a research agenda, supporting the faster-paced adoption of key innovations in care, and improving the accessibility of those innovations to all patient populations. These papers highlight the key clinical elements of the summit. Dr. Silvestri served as Chair of the Summit Steering Committee. 

The supplement includes:

Part 1: Biomarker Use for Pulmonologists: Pulmonary Nodule Management

• Factors that influence the evaluation and management of indeterminate solid nodules
• Summary of key guidelines
• Emergence of biomarkers in clinical trials
   

Part 2: Biomarker Use in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: What the Pulmonologist Needs to Know

• Expansion of systemic lung cancer treatments in recent years
• Clinical trials demonstrating improved patient outcomes
• Biomarkers being used in targeted therapies

Click to Read

Click to Read

In this two-part supplement to CHEST Physician, Brett Bade, MD, (Yale School of Medicine) and Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP (Medical University of South Carolina) discuss the role that pulmonologists play in lung cancer treatment as well as the clinical relevance of biomarkers.

The content in this supplement is based on proceedings from the Lung Cancer Summit hosted by the American College of Chest Physicians last July. The summit successfully fostered key relationships between clinicians, educators, scientists, advocacy groups, payers, and government entities. Attendees identified opportunities to align efforts toward moving forward a research agenda, supporting the faster-paced adoption of key innovations in care, and improving the accessibility of those innovations to all patient populations. These papers highlight the key clinical elements of the summit. Dr. Silvestri served as Chair of the Summit Steering Committee. 

The supplement includes:

Part 1: Biomarker Use for Pulmonologists: Pulmonary Nodule Management

• Factors that influence the evaluation and management of indeterminate solid nodules
• Summary of key guidelines
• Emergence of biomarkers in clinical trials
   

Part 2: Biomarker Use in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: What the Pulmonologist Needs to Know

• Expansion of systemic lung cancer treatments in recent years
• Clinical trials demonstrating improved patient outcomes
• Biomarkers being used in targeted therapies

Click to Read

Click to Read

In this two-part supplement to CHEST Physician, Brett Bade, MD, (Yale School of Medicine) and Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, MS, FCCP (Medical University of South Carolina) discuss the role that pulmonologists play in lung cancer treatment as well as the clinical relevance of biomarkers.

The content in this supplement is based on proceedings from the Lung Cancer Summit hosted by the American College of Chest Physicians last July. The summit successfully fostered key relationships between clinicians, educators, scientists, advocacy groups, payers, and government entities. Attendees identified opportunities to align efforts toward moving forward a research agenda, supporting the faster-paced adoption of key innovations in care, and improving the accessibility of those innovations to all patient populations. These papers highlight the key clinical elements of the summit. Dr. Silvestri served as Chair of the Summit Steering Committee. 

The supplement includes:

Part 1: Biomarker Use for Pulmonologists: Pulmonary Nodule Management

• Factors that influence the evaluation and management of indeterminate solid nodules
• Summary of key guidelines
• Emergence of biomarkers in clinical trials
   

Part 2: Biomarker Use in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: What the Pulmonologist Needs to Know

• Expansion of systemic lung cancer treatments in recent years
• Clinical trials demonstrating improved patient outcomes
• Biomarkers being used in targeted therapies

Click to Read

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported recently that opioid overdose deaths will increase to a new U.S. record, and more are expected as pandemic-related overdose deaths are yet to be counted.¹

Specifically, according to the CDC, 70,980 people died from fatal overdoses in 2019,² which is record high. Experts such as Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD, fear that the 2020 numbers could rise even higher, exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.

Deaths from drug overdoses remain higher than the peak yearly death totals ever recorded for car accidents, guns, or AIDS. Overdose deaths have accelerated further – pushing down overall life expectancy in the United States.³ Headlines purporting to identify good news in drug death figures don’t always get below top-level data. Deaths and despair tied to drug dependence are indeed accelerating. I am concerned about these alarmingly dangerous trends.

Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl accounted for about 3,000 deaths in 2013. By 2019, they accounted for more than 37,137.⁴ In addition, 16,539 deaths involved stimulants such as methamphetamine, and 16,196 deaths involved cocaine, the most recent CDC reporting shows. Opioids continue to play a role in U.S. “deaths of despair,” or rising fatalities from drugs, suicides, and alcohol among Americans without employment, hope of job opportunities, or college degrees.⁵ As the American Medical Association has warned,⁶ more people are dying from overdoses amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians need to be aware of trends so that we can help our patients navigate these challenges.
 

Fentanyl presents dangers

Experts had predicted that the pandemic, by limiting access to treatment, rescue, or overdose services, and increasing time at home and in the neighborhood, would result in more tragedy. In addition, the shift from prescription opioids to heroin and now to fentanyl has made deaths more common.

Fentanyls – synthetic opioids – are involved in more than half of overdose deaths, and in many of the cocaine and methamphetamine-related deaths, which also are on the rise. Fentanyl is about 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. Breathing can stop after use of just 2 mg of fentanyl, which is about as much as trace amounts of table salt. Fentanyl has replaced heroin in many cities as the pandemic changed the relative ease of importing raw drugs such as heroin.

Another important trend is that fentanyl production and distribution throughout the United States have expanded. The ease of manufacture in unregulated sectors of the Chinese and Mexican economies is difficult for U.S. authorities to curb or eliminate. The Internet promotes novel strategies for synthesizing the substance, spreading its production across many labs; suppliers use the U.S. Postal Service for distribution, and e-commerce helps to get the drug from manufacturers to U.S. consumers for fentanyl transactions.

A recent RAND report observes that, for only $10 through the postal service, suppliers can ship a 1-kg parcel from China to the United States, and private shipments cost about $100.⁷ And with large volumes of legal trade between the two countries making rigorous scrutiny of products difficult, especially given the light weight of fentanyl, suppliers find it relatively easy to hide illicit substances in licit shipments. Opioid users have made the switch to fentanyl, and have seen fentanyl added to cocaine and methamphetamine they buy on the streets.
 

OUD and buprenorphine

Fentanyl is one part of the overdose crisis. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is the other. Both need to be addressed if we are to make any progress in this epidemic of death and dependency.

The OUD crisis continues amid the pandemic – and isn’t going away.⁸ Slips, relapses, and overdoses are all too common. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and OUD treatment programs are essential parts of our response to overdose initiatives. After naloxone rescue, the best anti-overdose response is to get the OUD patient into treatment with MATs. Patients with OUD have continuously high risks of overdose. The best outcomes appear to be related to treatment duration of greater than 2 years. But it is common to see patients with OUDs who have been in treatment multiple times, taking MATs, dropping out, overdosing, and dying. Some have been described as treatment resistant.⁹ It is clear that treatment can work, but also that even evidence-based treatments often fail.¹⁰

A recent study compared OUD patients who continued treatment for 6-9 months to those patients who had continued MAT treatment for 15-18 months. The longer the treatment, the fewer emergencies, prescriptions, or hospitalizations.¹¹

But this study reminds us that all OUD patients, whether they are currently buprenorphine treated or not, experience overdoses and emergency department interventions. Short and longer treatment groups have a similar nonfatal overdose rate, about 6%, and went to the emergency department at a high rate, above 40%. Discontinuation of buprenorphine treatment is a major risk factor in opioid relapse, emergency department visits, and overdose. Cures are not common. Whether an OUD patient is being treated or has been treated in the past, carrying naloxone (brand name Narcan), makes sense and can save lives.
 

Methadone still considered most effective

Methadone is a synthetic opioid first studied as a treatment for OUD at Rockefeller University in New York City in the 1960s. Methadone may be the most effective treatment for OUD in promoting treatment retention for years, decreasing intravenous drug use, and decreasing deaths.¹² It has been studied and safely used in treatment programs for decades. Methadone is typically administered in a clinic, daily, and with observation. In addition, methadone patients periodically take urine drug tests, which can distinguish methadone from substances of abuse. They also receive counseling. But methadone can be prescribed and administered only in methadone clinics in the United States. It is available for prescription in primary care clinics in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia.¹³ Numerous experts have suggested passing new legislation aimed at changing how methadone can be prescribed. Allowing primary care to administer methadone, just like buprenorphine, can improve access and benefit OUD patients.¹²

Availability of Narcan is critical

A comprehensive treatment model for OUDs includes prescribing naloxone, encouraging those patients with an OUD and their loved ones to have naloxone with them, and providing MATs and appropriate therapies, such as counseling.

As described by Allison L. Pitt and colleagues at Stanford (Calif.) University,¹⁴ the United States might be on track to have up to 500,000 deaths tied to opioid overdoses that might occur over the next 5 years. They modeled the effect on overdose of a long list of interventions, but only a few had an impact. At the top of the list was naloxone availability. We need to focus on saving lives by increasing naloxone availability, improving initiation, and expanding access to MAT, and increasing psychosocial treatment to improve outcomes, increase life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, and reduce opioid-related deaths. When Ms. Pitt and colleagues looked at what would make the most impact in reducing OUD deaths, it was naloxone. Pain patients on higher doses of opioids, nonprescription opioid users, OUD patients should be given naloxone prescriptions. While many can give a Heimlich to a choking person or CPR, few have naloxone to rescue a person who has overdosed on opioids. If an overdose is suspected, it should be administered by anyone who has it, as soon as possible. Then, the person who is intervening should call 911.
 

What we can do today

At this moment, clinicians can follow the Surgeon General’s advice,¹⁵ and prescribe naloxone.

We should give naloxone to OUD patients and their families, to pain patients at dosages of greater than or equal to 50 MME. Our top priorities should be patients with comorbid pain syndromes, those being treated with benzodiazepines and sleeping medications, and patients with alcohol use disorders. This is also an important intervention for those who binge drink, and have sleep apnea, and heart and respiratory diseases.

Naloxone is available without a prescription in at least 43 states. Naloxone is available in harm reduction programs and in hospitals, and is carried by emergency medical staff, law enforcement, and EMTs. It also is available on the streets, though it does not appear to have a dollar value like opioids or even buprenorphine. Also, the availability of naloxone in pharmacies has made it easier for family members and caregivers of pain patients or those with OUD to have it to administer in an emergency.

An excellent place for MDs to start is to do more to encourage all patients with OUD to carry naloxone, for their loved ones to carry naloxone, and for their homes to have naloxone nearby in the bedroom or bathroom. It is not logical to expect a person with an OUD to rescue themselves. Current and past OUD patients, as well as their loved ones, are at high risk – and should have naloxone nearby at all times.

Naloxone reverses an opioid overdose, but it should be thought about like cardioversion or CPR rather than a treatment for an underlying disease. Increasing access to buprenorphine, buprenorphine + naloxone, and naltrexone treatment for OUDs is an important organizing principle. Initiation of MAT treatment in the emergency setting or most anywhere and any place a patient with an OUD can begin treatment is necessary. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone reduces opioid overdose and opioid-related acute care use.¹⁶

Reducing racial disparities in OUD treatment is necessary, because buprenorphine treatment is concentrated among White patients who either use private insurance or are self-pay.¹⁷ Reducing barriers to methadone program licenses, expanding sites for distribution,¹⁸ prescribing methadone in an office setting might help. Clinicians can do a better job of explaining the risks associated with opioid prescriptions, including diversion and overdose, and the benefits of OUD treatment. So, while naloxone saves lives and is a wonder drug, it does not replace an intervention such as MAT, a counselor, a good treatment program, and a treatment plan. To reduce opioid overdoses, we must increase physician competencies in addiction medicine.
 

Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He disclosed financial ties with ADAPT Pharma and Magstim Ltd.

References

1. Kamp J. Overdose deaths rise, may reach record level, federal data show. Wall Street Journal. 2020 Jul 15.

2. 12 month–ending provisional number of drug overdose drugs. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020 Jul 5.

3. Katz J et al. In shadow of pandemic, U.S. drug overdose deaths resurge to record. New York Times. 2020 Jul 15.

4. Gold MS. The fentanyl crisis is only getting worse. Addiction Policy Forum. Updated 2020 Mar 12.

5. Gold MS. Mo Med. 2020-Mar-Apr;117(2):99-101.

6. Reports of increases in opioid-related overdoses and other concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Medical Association. Issue brief. Updated 2020 Jul 20.

7. Pardo B et al. The future of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. RAND report.

8. Gold MS. New challenges in the opioid epidemic. Addiction Policy Forum. 2020 Jun 4.

9. Patterson Silver Wolf DA and Gold MS. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116718.

10. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(10):2072-86.

11. Connery HS and Weiss RD. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(2):104-6.

12. Kleber HD. JAMA. 2008;300(19):2303-5.

13. Samet JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):7-8.

14. Pitt AL et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1394-1400.

15. U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Naloxone and Opioid Overdose. hhs.gov.

16. Wakeman SE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622.

17. Lagisetty PA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(9):979-81.

18. Kleinman RA. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1624.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported recently that opioid overdose deaths will increase to a new U.S. record, and more are expected as pandemic-related overdose deaths are yet to be counted.¹

Specifically, according to the CDC, 70,980 people died from fatal overdoses in 2019,² which is record high. Experts such as Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD, fear that the 2020 numbers could rise even higher, exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.

Deaths from drug overdoses remain higher than the peak yearly death totals ever recorded for car accidents, guns, or AIDS. Overdose deaths have accelerated further – pushing down overall life expectancy in the United States.³ Headlines purporting to identify good news in drug death figures don’t always get below top-level data. Deaths and despair tied to drug dependence are indeed accelerating. I am concerned about these alarmingly dangerous trends.

Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl accounted for about 3,000 deaths in 2013. By 2019, they accounted for more than 37,137.⁴ In addition, 16,539 deaths involved stimulants such as methamphetamine, and 16,196 deaths involved cocaine, the most recent CDC reporting shows. Opioids continue to play a role in U.S. “deaths of despair,” or rising fatalities from drugs, suicides, and alcohol among Americans without employment, hope of job opportunities, or college degrees.⁵ As the American Medical Association has warned,⁶ more people are dying from overdoses amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians need to be aware of trends so that we can help our patients navigate these challenges.
 

Fentanyl presents dangers

Experts had predicted that the pandemic, by limiting access to treatment, rescue, or overdose services, and increasing time at home and in the neighborhood, would result in more tragedy. In addition, the shift from prescription opioids to heroin and now to fentanyl has made deaths more common.

Fentanyls – synthetic opioids – are involved in more than half of overdose deaths, and in many of the cocaine and methamphetamine-related deaths, which also are on the rise. Fentanyl is about 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. Breathing can stop after use of just 2 mg of fentanyl, which is about as much as trace amounts of table salt. Fentanyl has replaced heroin in many cities as the pandemic changed the relative ease of importing raw drugs such as heroin.

Another important trend is that fentanyl production and distribution throughout the United States have expanded. The ease of manufacture in unregulated sectors of the Chinese and Mexican economies is difficult for U.S. authorities to curb or eliminate. The Internet promotes novel strategies for synthesizing the substance, spreading its production across many labs; suppliers use the U.S. Postal Service for distribution, and e-commerce helps to get the drug from manufacturers to U.S. consumers for fentanyl transactions.

A recent RAND report observes that, for only $10 through the postal service, suppliers can ship a 1-kg parcel from China to the United States, and private shipments cost about $100.⁷ And with large volumes of legal trade between the two countries making rigorous scrutiny of products difficult, especially given the light weight of fentanyl, suppliers find it relatively easy to hide illicit substances in licit shipments. Opioid users have made the switch to fentanyl, and have seen fentanyl added to cocaine and methamphetamine they buy on the streets.
 

OUD and buprenorphine

Fentanyl is one part of the overdose crisis. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is the other. Both need to be addressed if we are to make any progress in this epidemic of death and dependency.

The OUD crisis continues amid the pandemic – and isn’t going away.⁸ Slips, relapses, and overdoses are all too common. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and OUD treatment programs are essential parts of our response to overdose initiatives. After naloxone rescue, the best anti-overdose response is to get the OUD patient into treatment with MATs. Patients with OUD have continuously high risks of overdose. The best outcomes appear to be related to treatment duration of greater than 2 years. But it is common to see patients with OUDs who have been in treatment multiple times, taking MATs, dropping out, overdosing, and dying. Some have been described as treatment resistant.⁹ It is clear that treatment can work, but also that even evidence-based treatments often fail.¹⁰

A recent study compared OUD patients who continued treatment for 6-9 months to those patients who had continued MAT treatment for 15-18 months. The longer the treatment, the fewer emergencies, prescriptions, or hospitalizations.¹¹

But this study reminds us that all OUD patients, whether they are currently buprenorphine treated or not, experience overdoses and emergency department interventions. Short and longer treatment groups have a similar nonfatal overdose rate, about 6%, and went to the emergency department at a high rate, above 40%. Discontinuation of buprenorphine treatment is a major risk factor in opioid relapse, emergency department visits, and overdose. Cures are not common. Whether an OUD patient is being treated or has been treated in the past, carrying naloxone (brand name Narcan), makes sense and can save lives.
 

Methadone still considered most effective

Methadone is a synthetic opioid first studied as a treatment for OUD at Rockefeller University in New York City in the 1960s. Methadone may be the most effective treatment for OUD in promoting treatment retention for years, decreasing intravenous drug use, and decreasing deaths.¹² It has been studied and safely used in treatment programs for decades. Methadone is typically administered in a clinic, daily, and with observation. In addition, methadone patients periodically take urine drug tests, which can distinguish methadone from substances of abuse. They also receive counseling. But methadone can be prescribed and administered only in methadone clinics in the United States. It is available for prescription in primary care clinics in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia.¹³ Numerous experts have suggested passing new legislation aimed at changing how methadone can be prescribed. Allowing primary care to administer methadone, just like buprenorphine, can improve access and benefit OUD patients.¹²

Availability of Narcan is critical

A comprehensive treatment model for OUDs includes prescribing naloxone, encouraging those patients with an OUD and their loved ones to have naloxone with them, and providing MATs and appropriate therapies, such as counseling.

As described by Allison L. Pitt and colleagues at Stanford (Calif.) University,¹⁴ the United States might be on track to have up to 500,000 deaths tied to opioid overdoses that might occur over the next 5 years. They modeled the effect on overdose of a long list of interventions, but only a few had an impact. At the top of the list was naloxone availability. We need to focus on saving lives by increasing naloxone availability, improving initiation, and expanding access to MAT, and increasing psychosocial treatment to improve outcomes, increase life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, and reduce opioid-related deaths. When Ms. Pitt and colleagues looked at what would make the most impact in reducing OUD deaths, it was naloxone. Pain patients on higher doses of opioids, nonprescription opioid users, OUD patients should be given naloxone prescriptions. While many can give a Heimlich to a choking person or CPR, few have naloxone to rescue a person who has overdosed on opioids. If an overdose is suspected, it should be administered by anyone who has it, as soon as possible. Then, the person who is intervening should call 911.
 

What we can do today

At this moment, clinicians can follow the Surgeon General’s advice,¹⁵ and prescribe naloxone.

We should give naloxone to OUD patients and their families, to pain patients at dosages of greater than or equal to 50 MME. Our top priorities should be patients with comorbid pain syndromes, those being treated with benzodiazepines and sleeping medications, and patients with alcohol use disorders. This is also an important intervention for those who binge drink, and have sleep apnea, and heart and respiratory diseases.

Naloxone is available without a prescription in at least 43 states. Naloxone is available in harm reduction programs and in hospitals, and is carried by emergency medical staff, law enforcement, and EMTs. It also is available on the streets, though it does not appear to have a dollar value like opioids or even buprenorphine. Also, the availability of naloxone in pharmacies has made it easier for family members and caregivers of pain patients or those with OUD to have it to administer in an emergency.

An excellent place for MDs to start is to do more to encourage all patients with OUD to carry naloxone, for their loved ones to carry naloxone, and for their homes to have naloxone nearby in the bedroom or bathroom. It is not logical to expect a person with an OUD to rescue themselves. Current and past OUD patients, as well as their loved ones, are at high risk – and should have naloxone nearby at all times.

Naloxone reverses an opioid overdose, but it should be thought about like cardioversion or CPR rather than a treatment for an underlying disease. Increasing access to buprenorphine, buprenorphine + naloxone, and naltrexone treatment for OUDs is an important organizing principle. Initiation of MAT treatment in the emergency setting or most anywhere and any place a patient with an OUD can begin treatment is necessary. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone reduces opioid overdose and opioid-related acute care use.¹⁶

Reducing racial disparities in OUD treatment is necessary, because buprenorphine treatment is concentrated among White patients who either use private insurance or are self-pay.¹⁷ Reducing barriers to methadone program licenses, expanding sites for distribution,¹⁸ prescribing methadone in an office setting might help. Clinicians can do a better job of explaining the risks associated with opioid prescriptions, including diversion and overdose, and the benefits of OUD treatment. So, while naloxone saves lives and is a wonder drug, it does not replace an intervention such as MAT, a counselor, a good treatment program, and a treatment plan. To reduce opioid overdoses, we must increase physician competencies in addiction medicine.
 

Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He disclosed financial ties with ADAPT Pharma and Magstim Ltd.

References

1. Kamp J. Overdose deaths rise, may reach record level, federal data show. Wall Street Journal. 2020 Jul 15.

2. 12 month–ending provisional number of drug overdose drugs. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020 Jul 5.

3. Katz J et al. In shadow of pandemic, U.S. drug overdose deaths resurge to record. New York Times. 2020 Jul 15.

4. Gold MS. The fentanyl crisis is only getting worse. Addiction Policy Forum. Updated 2020 Mar 12.

5. Gold MS. Mo Med. 2020-Mar-Apr;117(2):99-101.

6. Reports of increases in opioid-related overdoses and other concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Medical Association. Issue brief. Updated 2020 Jul 20.

7. Pardo B et al. The future of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. RAND report.

8. Gold MS. New challenges in the opioid epidemic. Addiction Policy Forum. 2020 Jun 4.

9. Patterson Silver Wolf DA and Gold MS. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116718.

10. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(10):2072-86.

11. Connery HS and Weiss RD. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(2):104-6.

12. Kleber HD. JAMA. 2008;300(19):2303-5.

13. Samet JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):7-8.

14. Pitt AL et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1394-1400.

15. U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Naloxone and Opioid Overdose. hhs.gov.

16. Wakeman SE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622.

17. Lagisetty PA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(9):979-81.

18. Kleinman RA. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1624.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported recently that opioid overdose deaths will increase to a new U.S. record, and more are expected as pandemic-related overdose deaths are yet to be counted.¹

Specifically, according to the CDC, 70,980 people died from fatal overdoses in 2019,² which is record high. Experts such as Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD, fear that the 2020 numbers could rise even higher, exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.

Deaths from drug overdoses remain higher than the peak yearly death totals ever recorded for car accidents, guns, or AIDS. Overdose deaths have accelerated further – pushing down overall life expectancy in the United States.³ Headlines purporting to identify good news in drug death figures don’t always get below top-level data. Deaths and despair tied to drug dependence are indeed accelerating. I am concerned about these alarmingly dangerous trends.

Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl accounted for about 3,000 deaths in 2013. By 2019, they accounted for more than 37,137.⁴ In addition, 16,539 deaths involved stimulants such as methamphetamine, and 16,196 deaths involved cocaine, the most recent CDC reporting shows. Opioids continue to play a role in U.S. “deaths of despair,” or rising fatalities from drugs, suicides, and alcohol among Americans without employment, hope of job opportunities, or college degrees.⁵ As the American Medical Association has warned,⁶ more people are dying from overdoses amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians need to be aware of trends so that we can help our patients navigate these challenges.
 

Fentanyl presents dangers

Experts had predicted that the pandemic, by limiting access to treatment, rescue, or overdose services, and increasing time at home and in the neighborhood, would result in more tragedy. In addition, the shift from prescription opioids to heroin and now to fentanyl has made deaths more common.

Fentanyls – synthetic opioids – are involved in more than half of overdose deaths, and in many of the cocaine and methamphetamine-related deaths, which also are on the rise. Fentanyl is about 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. Breathing can stop after use of just 2 mg of fentanyl, which is about as much as trace amounts of table salt. Fentanyl has replaced heroin in many cities as the pandemic changed the relative ease of importing raw drugs such as heroin.

Another important trend is that fentanyl production and distribution throughout the United States have expanded. The ease of manufacture in unregulated sectors of the Chinese and Mexican economies is difficult for U.S. authorities to curb or eliminate. The Internet promotes novel strategies for synthesizing the substance, spreading its production across many labs; suppliers use the U.S. Postal Service for distribution, and e-commerce helps to get the drug from manufacturers to U.S. consumers for fentanyl transactions.

A recent RAND report observes that, for only $10 through the postal service, suppliers can ship a 1-kg parcel from China to the United States, and private shipments cost about $100.⁷ And with large volumes of legal trade between the two countries making rigorous scrutiny of products difficult, especially given the light weight of fentanyl, suppliers find it relatively easy to hide illicit substances in licit shipments. Opioid users have made the switch to fentanyl, and have seen fentanyl added to cocaine and methamphetamine they buy on the streets.
 

OUD and buprenorphine

Fentanyl is one part of the overdose crisis. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is the other. Both need to be addressed if we are to make any progress in this epidemic of death and dependency.

The OUD crisis continues amid the pandemic – and isn’t going away.⁸ Slips, relapses, and overdoses are all too common. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and OUD treatment programs are essential parts of our response to overdose initiatives. After naloxone rescue, the best anti-overdose response is to get the OUD patient into treatment with MATs. Patients with OUD have continuously high risks of overdose. The best outcomes appear to be related to treatment duration of greater than 2 years. But it is common to see patients with OUDs who have been in treatment multiple times, taking MATs, dropping out, overdosing, and dying. Some have been described as treatment resistant.⁹ It is clear that treatment can work, but also that even evidence-based treatments often fail.¹⁰

A recent study compared OUD patients who continued treatment for 6-9 months to those patients who had continued MAT treatment for 15-18 months. The longer the treatment, the fewer emergencies, prescriptions, or hospitalizations.¹¹

But this study reminds us that all OUD patients, whether they are currently buprenorphine treated or not, experience overdoses and emergency department interventions. Short and longer treatment groups have a similar nonfatal overdose rate, about 6%, and went to the emergency department at a high rate, above 40%. Discontinuation of buprenorphine treatment is a major risk factor in opioid relapse, emergency department visits, and overdose. Cures are not common. Whether an OUD patient is being treated or has been treated in the past, carrying naloxone (brand name Narcan), makes sense and can save lives.
 

Methadone still considered most effective

Methadone is a synthetic opioid first studied as a treatment for OUD at Rockefeller University in New York City in the 1960s. Methadone may be the most effective treatment for OUD in promoting treatment retention for years, decreasing intravenous drug use, and decreasing deaths.¹² It has been studied and safely used in treatment programs for decades. Methadone is typically administered in a clinic, daily, and with observation. In addition, methadone patients periodically take urine drug tests, which can distinguish methadone from substances of abuse. They also receive counseling. But methadone can be prescribed and administered only in methadone clinics in the United States. It is available for prescription in primary care clinics in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia.¹³ Numerous experts have suggested passing new legislation aimed at changing how methadone can be prescribed. Allowing primary care to administer methadone, just like buprenorphine, can improve access and benefit OUD patients.¹²

Availability of Narcan is critical

A comprehensive treatment model for OUDs includes prescribing naloxone, encouraging those patients with an OUD and their loved ones to have naloxone with them, and providing MATs and appropriate therapies, such as counseling.

As described by Allison L. Pitt and colleagues at Stanford (Calif.) University,¹⁴ the United States might be on track to have up to 500,000 deaths tied to opioid overdoses that might occur over the next 5 years. They modeled the effect on overdose of a long list of interventions, but only a few had an impact. At the top of the list was naloxone availability. We need to focus on saving lives by increasing naloxone availability, improving initiation, and expanding access to MAT, and increasing psychosocial treatment to improve outcomes, increase life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, and reduce opioid-related deaths. When Ms. Pitt and colleagues looked at what would make the most impact in reducing OUD deaths, it was naloxone. Pain patients on higher doses of opioids, nonprescription opioid users, OUD patients should be given naloxone prescriptions. While many can give a Heimlich to a choking person or CPR, few have naloxone to rescue a person who has overdosed on opioids. If an overdose is suspected, it should be administered by anyone who has it, as soon as possible. Then, the person who is intervening should call 911.
 

What we can do today

At this moment, clinicians can follow the Surgeon General’s advice,¹⁵ and prescribe naloxone.

We should give naloxone to OUD patients and their families, to pain patients at dosages of greater than or equal to 50 MME. Our top priorities should be patients with comorbid pain syndromes, those being treated with benzodiazepines and sleeping medications, and patients with alcohol use disorders. This is also an important intervention for those who binge drink, and have sleep apnea, and heart and respiratory diseases.

Naloxone is available without a prescription in at least 43 states. Naloxone is available in harm reduction programs and in hospitals, and is carried by emergency medical staff, law enforcement, and EMTs. It also is available on the streets, though it does not appear to have a dollar value like opioids or even buprenorphine. Also, the availability of naloxone in pharmacies has made it easier for family members and caregivers of pain patients or those with OUD to have it to administer in an emergency.

An excellent place for MDs to start is to do more to encourage all patients with OUD to carry naloxone, for their loved ones to carry naloxone, and for their homes to have naloxone nearby in the bedroom or bathroom. It is not logical to expect a person with an OUD to rescue themselves. Current and past OUD patients, as well as their loved ones, are at high risk – and should have naloxone nearby at all times.

Naloxone reverses an opioid overdose, but it should be thought about like cardioversion or CPR rather than a treatment for an underlying disease. Increasing access to buprenorphine, buprenorphine + naloxone, and naltrexone treatment for OUDs is an important organizing principle. Initiation of MAT treatment in the emergency setting or most anywhere and any place a patient with an OUD can begin treatment is necessary. Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone reduces opioid overdose and opioid-related acute care use.¹⁶

Reducing racial disparities in OUD treatment is necessary, because buprenorphine treatment is concentrated among White patients who either use private insurance or are self-pay.¹⁷ Reducing barriers to methadone program licenses, expanding sites for distribution,¹⁸ prescribing methadone in an office setting might help. Clinicians can do a better job of explaining the risks associated with opioid prescriptions, including diversion and overdose, and the benefits of OUD treatment. So, while naloxone saves lives and is a wonder drug, it does not replace an intervention such as MAT, a counselor, a good treatment program, and a treatment plan. To reduce opioid overdoses, we must increase physician competencies in addiction medicine.
 

Dr. Gold is professor of psychiatry (adjunct) at Washington University, St. Louis. He is the 17th Distinguished Alumni Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville. For more than 40 years, Dr. Gold has worked on developing models for understanding the effects of opioid, tobacco, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as food, on the brain and behavior. He disclosed financial ties with ADAPT Pharma and Magstim Ltd.

References

1. Kamp J. Overdose deaths rise, may reach record level, federal data show. Wall Street Journal. 2020 Jul 15.

2. 12 month–ending provisional number of drug overdose drugs. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020 Jul 5.

3. Katz J et al. In shadow of pandemic, U.S. drug overdose deaths resurge to record. New York Times. 2020 Jul 15.

4. Gold MS. The fentanyl crisis is only getting worse. Addiction Policy Forum. Updated 2020 Mar 12.

5. Gold MS. Mo Med. 2020-Mar-Apr;117(2):99-101.

6. Reports of increases in opioid-related overdoses and other concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Medical Association. Issue brief. Updated 2020 Jul 20.

7. Pardo B et al. The future of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. RAND report.

8. Gold MS. New challenges in the opioid epidemic. Addiction Policy Forum. 2020 Jun 4.

9. Patterson Silver Wolf DA and Gold MS. J Neurol Sci. 2020;411:116718.

10. Oesterle TS et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(10):2072-86.

11. Connery HS and Weiss RD. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(2):104-6.

12. Kleber HD. JAMA. 2008;300(19):2303-5.

13. Samet JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):7-8.

14. Pitt AL et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1394-1400.

15. U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Naloxone and Opioid Overdose. hhs.gov.

16. Wakeman SE et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622.

17. Lagisetty PA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(9):979-81.

18. Kleinman RA. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1624.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.

Although patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are at known risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), there was no overall genetic correlation found to be associated with that susceptibility in the overall population. However, a significant genetic predisposition to VTE was found in adolescent ALL patients, according to a report published in Thrombosis Research.

The researchers assessed the prospectively registered VTE events and collected germline DNA in patients aged 1-45.9 years in the Nordic Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (NOPHO) ALL2008 study, which took place from 2008 to 2016. The researchers performed polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis on VTE development in the NOPHO cohort, according to Kirsten Brunsvig Jarvis, MD, of Oslo University Hospital, and colleagues.

The researchers used summary statistics from two large genomewide association studies on VTE in adults (the International Network of Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks [INVENT] consortium and the UK Biobank).

Of 1,252 patients with ALL in the genetic cohort, 89 developed VTE (2.5-year cumulative incidence, 7.2%; 95% confidence interval,5.7-8.6) at a median 12.7 weeks from diagnosis.

Overall, an analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from INVENT and UK Biobank studies did not reveal evidence of polygenic correlation with VTE in patients with ALL, the researchers reported. However, when separating adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years (n = 231) from adults aged 18 years or older (n = 127), they saw polygenic overlap between the INVENT study and thromboembolism development in the adolescent population.

The best-fit polygenic risk score, including 16,144 SNPs, was associated with VTE in adolescents with ALL at a hazard ratio of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23-2.52; P = .02).
 

Adolescent vs. adult risk

The researchers expressed surprise that they did not find evidence of genetic overlap in adults. But they stated that, in general, VTE occurs more frequently in adults as part of natural aging, while children and adolescents are physiologically protected. This might explain why genetics might play a stronger role in the high-risk situation of cancer and chemotherapy in adolescents who do not have as many additional exogenic risk factors as adults.

“The usefulness of genetic studies on [V]TE in the general adult population is limited when it comes to understanding the etiology of [V]TE in patients with ALL. However, we found evidence of polygenic overlap in subgroup analysis of adolescents aged 10.0-17.9 years with ALL, and we believe the genetics of [V]TE in this group should be further explored in future risk prediction models for identification of those who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by research grant from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jarvis KB et al. Thromb Res. 2020 Aug 11.doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.015.