MDedge Rheumatology

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Monthly supplementation with vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) in older adults without deficiency has no significant benefit in terms of survival outcomes, including mortality linked to cardiovascular disease, new results from a large, placebo-controlled trial show.

“The take-home message is that routine vitamin D supplementation, irrespective of the dosing regimen, is unlikely to be beneficial in a population with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency,” first author Rachel E. Neale, PhD, of the Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, in Brisbane, Australia, told this news organization.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Despite extensive previous research on vitamin D supplementation, “mortality has not been the primary outcome in any previous large trial of high-dose vitamin D supplementation,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted. The results, published online in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, are from the D-Health trial.

With more than 20,000 participants, this is the largest intermittent-dosing trial to date, the authors noted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

In an accompanying editorial, Inez Schoenmakers, PhD, noted that “the findings [are] highly relevant for population policy, owing to the study’s population-based design, large scale, and long duration.”

This new “research contributes to the concept that improving vitamin D status with supplementation in a mostly vitamin D-replete older population does not influence all-cause mortality,” Dr. Schoenmakers, of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, said in an interview.

“This is not dissimilar to research with many other nutrients showing that increasing intake above the adequate intake has no further health benefits,” she added.
 

D-Health Trial

The D-Health Trial involved 21,315 participants in Australia, enrolled between February 2014 and June 2015, who had not been screened for vitamin D deficiency but were largely considered to be vitamin D replete. They were a mean age of 69.3 years and 54% were men.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to a once-monthly oral vitamin D₃ supplementation of 60,000 IU (n = 10,662) or a placebo capsule (n = 10,653).

They were permitted to take up to 2,000 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D in addition to the study protocol and had no history of kidney stones, hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, there were 1,100 deaths: 562 in the vitamin D group (5.3%) and 538 in the placebo group (5.1%). With a hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality of 1.04, the difference was not significant (P = .47).

There were also no significant differences in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.96; P = .77), cancer (HR, 1.15; P = .13), or other causes (HR, 0.83; P = .15).

Rates of total adverse events between the two groups, including hypercalcemia and kidney stones, were similar.

An exploratory analysis excluding the first 2 years of follow-up in fact showed a numerically higher hazard ratio for cancer mortality in the vitamin D group versus no supplementation (HR, 1.24; P = .05). However, the authors noted that the effect was “not apparent when the analysis was restricted to deaths that were coded by the study team and not officially coded.”

Nevertheless, “our findings, from a large study in an unscreened population, give pause to earlier reports that vitamin D supplements might reduce cancer mortality,” they underscored.

Retention and adherence in the study were high, each exceeding 80%. Although blood samples were not collected at baseline, samples from 3,943 randomly sampled participants during follow-up showed mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations of 77 nmol/L in the placebo group and 115 nmol/L in the vitamin D group, both within the normal range of 50-125 nmol/L.
 

Findings supported by previous research

The trial results are consistent with those of prior large studies and meta-analyses of older adults with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency showing that vitamin D₃ supplementation, regardless of whether taken daily or monthly, is not likely to have an effect on all-cause mortality.

In the US VITAL trial, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, among 25,871 participants administered 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D₃ for a median of 5.3 years, there was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

The ViDA trial of 5,110 older adults in New Zealand, published in 2019 in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, also showed monthly vitamin D₃ supplementation of 100,000 IU for a median of 3.3 years was not associated with a benefit in people who were not deficient.

“In total, the results from the large trials and meta-analyses suggest that routine supplementation of older adults in populations with a low prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is unlikely to reduce the rate of all-cause mortality,” Dr. Neale and colleagues concluded.
 

Longer-term supplementation beneficial?

The population was limited to older adults and the study had a relatively short follow-up period, which Dr. Neale noted was necessary for pragmatic reasons.

“Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, so to have sufficient deaths we either needed to study older adults or a much larger sample of younger adults,” she explained.

“However, we felt that [the former] ... had biological justification, as there is evidence that vitamin D plays a role later in the course of a number of diseases, with potential impacts on mortality.”

She noted that recent studies evaluating genetically predicted concentrations of serum 25(OH)D have further shown no link between those levels and all-cause mortality, stroke, or coronary heart disease.

“This confirms the statement that vitamin D is unlikely to be beneficial in people who are not vitamin D deficient, irrespective of whether supplementation occurs over the short or longer term,” Dr. Neale said.

The source of vitamin D, itself, is another consideration, with ongoing speculation of differences in benefits between dietary or supplementation sources versus sunlight exposure.

“Exposure to ultraviolet radiation, for which serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker, might confer benefits not mediated by vitamin D,” Dr. Neale and coauthors noted.

They added that the results in the older Australian population “cannot be generalized to populations with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, or with a greater proportion of people not of White ancestry, than the study population.”

Ten-year mortality rates from the D-Health trial are expected to be reported in the future.
 

Strategies still needed to address vitamin D deficiency

Further commenting on the findings, Dr. Schoenmakers underscored that “vitamin D deficiency is very common worldwide, [and] more should be done to develop strategies to address the needs of those groups and populations that are at risk of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency.”

That said, the D-Health study is important in helping to distinguish when supplementation may – and may not – be of benefit, she noted.

“This and other research in the past 15 years have contributed to our understanding [of] what the ranges of vitamin D status are [in which] health consequences may be anticipated.”

The D-Health Trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Neale and Dr. Schoenmakers have reported no relevant financial relationships. 


version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

As Rheumatology News celebrates 20 years of publication in 2022, we’ll be taking a look back at rheumatology’s past and ahead to its future throughout the year. This time around, we’ll examine the first issue of Rheumatology News, which was published in February 2002. You can read the first-ever issue at the "PDF Download" link above.

In that premiere issue, information about early treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) featured prominently. A front-page story described new findings showing that early treatment of RA with DMARDs could reduce disease-related disability by one-third or more. A second article described quantitative improvement in MRI-detected synovitis in patients with early RA who were treated with infliximab for 14 weeks, while another reported on clinically relevant responses seen in 66% of patients treated with adalimumab plus methotrexate in a trial of patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate alone.

In other RA news, a report focused on low rates of preventive health care services and screening for other disorders in women, including Pap smears, mammograms, and influenza vaccinations. Another story suggested the possibility that methotrexate may elevate cancer risk in patients with RA. An analysis of two separate prospective studies indicated that women who regularly drink decaffeinated coffee may be at higher risk for developing RA.

Another page 1 story examined the potential of new drugs bosentan and epoprostenol for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with various forms of connective tissue disease.

Etanercept was the focus of two articles, one announcing its approval for psoriatic arthritis, and another describing a small trial of the biologic in treating moderate to severe ankylosing spondylitis.

In osteoarthritis news, a front-page report described two placebo-controlled studies of oral glucosamine sulfate supplementation that suggested the formulation might slow the progression of joint space narrowing in postmenopausal women, and another article noted how a combined formulation of tramadol and acetaminophen reduced OA pain flares.

Readers were also treated to a pro and con editorial debate between Frederick Wolfe, MD, and Thomas J. Romano, MD, on whether trauma causes fibromyalgia.

Looking ahead

Throughout 2022, look for articles examining the past and future of rheumatology, including:

• The rise of women in the field;
• the rise of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs;
• the history and ongoing influence of OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology);
• the growth and future of ACR-EULAR collaborations;
• progress and future directions of pediatric rheumatology; and
• the growth in understanding how sociodemographics and racial/ethnic identity affect access to and acceptance and receipt of rheumatologic care.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of Rheumatology News’ 20th anniversary? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

As Rheumatology News celebrates 20 years of publication in 2022, we’ll be taking a look back at rheumatology’s past and ahead to its future throughout the year. This time around, we’ll examine the first issue of Rheumatology News, which was published in February 2002. You can read the first-ever issue at the "PDF Download" link above.

In that premiere issue, information about early treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) featured prominently. A front-page story described new findings showing that early treatment of RA with DMARDs could reduce disease-related disability by one-third or more. A second article described quantitative improvement in MRI-detected synovitis in patients with early RA who were treated with infliximab for 14 weeks, while another reported on clinically relevant responses seen in 66% of patients treated with adalimumab plus methotrexate in a trial of patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate alone.

In other RA news, a report focused on low rates of preventive health care services and screening for other disorders in women, including Pap smears, mammograms, and influenza vaccinations. Another story suggested the possibility that methotrexate may elevate cancer risk in patients with RA. An analysis of two separate prospective studies indicated that women who regularly drink decaffeinated coffee may be at higher risk for developing RA.

Another page 1 story examined the potential of new drugs bosentan and epoprostenol for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with various forms of connective tissue disease.

Etanercept was the focus of two articles, one announcing its approval for psoriatic arthritis, and another describing a small trial of the biologic in treating moderate to severe ankylosing spondylitis.

In osteoarthritis news, a front-page report described two placebo-controlled studies of oral glucosamine sulfate supplementation that suggested the formulation might slow the progression of joint space narrowing in postmenopausal women, and another article noted how a combined formulation of tramadol and acetaminophen reduced OA pain flares.

Readers were also treated to a pro and con editorial debate between Frederick Wolfe, MD, and Thomas J. Romano, MD, on whether trauma causes fibromyalgia.

Looking ahead

Throughout 2022, look for articles examining the past and future of rheumatology, including:

• The rise of women in the field;
• the rise of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs;
• the history and ongoing influence of OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology);
• the growth and future of ACR-EULAR collaborations;
• progress and future directions of pediatric rheumatology; and
• the growth in understanding how sociodemographics and racial/ethnic identity affect access to and acceptance and receipt of rheumatologic care.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of Rheumatology News’ 20th anniversary? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

As Rheumatology News celebrates 20 years of publication in 2022, we’ll be taking a look back at rheumatology’s past and ahead to its future throughout the year. This time around, we’ll examine the first issue of Rheumatology News, which was published in February 2002. You can read the first-ever issue at the "PDF Download" link above.

In that premiere issue, information about early treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) featured prominently. A front-page story described new findings showing that early treatment of RA with DMARDs could reduce disease-related disability by one-third or more. A second article described quantitative improvement in MRI-detected synovitis in patients with early RA who were treated with infliximab for 14 weeks, while another reported on clinically relevant responses seen in 66% of patients treated with adalimumab plus methotrexate in a trial of patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate alone.

In other RA news, a report focused on low rates of preventive health care services and screening for other disorders in women, including Pap smears, mammograms, and influenza vaccinations. Another story suggested the possibility that methotrexate may elevate cancer risk in patients with RA. An analysis of two separate prospective studies indicated that women who regularly drink decaffeinated coffee may be at higher risk for developing RA.

Another page 1 story examined the potential of new drugs bosentan and epoprostenol for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with various forms of connective tissue disease.

Etanercept was the focus of two articles, one announcing its approval for psoriatic arthritis, and another describing a small trial of the biologic in treating moderate to severe ankylosing spondylitis.

In osteoarthritis news, a front-page report described two placebo-controlled studies of oral glucosamine sulfate supplementation that suggested the formulation might slow the progression of joint space narrowing in postmenopausal women, and another article noted how a combined formulation of tramadol and acetaminophen reduced OA pain flares.

Readers were also treated to a pro and con editorial debate between Frederick Wolfe, MD, and Thomas J. Romano, MD, on whether trauma causes fibromyalgia.

Looking ahead

Throughout 2022, look for articles examining the past and future of rheumatology, including:

• The rise of women in the field;
• the rise of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs;
• the history and ongoing influence of OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology);
• the growth and future of ACR-EULAR collaborations;
• progress and future directions of pediatric rheumatology; and
• the growth in understanding how sociodemographics and racial/ethnic identity affect access to and acceptance and receipt of rheumatologic care.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of Rheumatology News’ 20th anniversary? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

High plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may reduce fentanyl-induced respiratory depression, new research suggests.

The primary endpoint measure in a small “proof of principal” pharmacology study was effect of escalating fentanyl dosing on respiratory depression by way of decreased isohypercapnic minute ventilation (VE) – or volume of gas inhaled or exhaled per minute from the lungs.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Results showed the maximum decrease in highest-dose fentanyl-induced VE was almost 50% less for opioid-tolerant patients receiving a 2.0 ng/mL concentration of steady-state plasma buprenorphine than when receiving matching placebo.

Risk for apnea requiring stimulation after fentanyl dosing was also significantly lower with buprenorphine.

“Even though the study is small, a lot of data were collected which will allow us to very accurately predict which plasma concentrations, and therefore drug doses, are needed to protect people adequately in practice,” study coinvestigator Geert Jan Groeneveld, MD, PhD, neurologist and clinical pharmacologist at the Centre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and professor of clinical neuropharmacology at Leiden University Medical Center, told this news organization.

He added the “beautiful results” were in line with what the researchers expected and although further research is needed, the study provides a lot of useful information for clinicians.

“I think this is an approach that works, and this study makes that clear,” Dr. Groeneveld added.

The findings were published online Jan. 27, 2022, in PLoS One.
 

High death rate from synthetic opioids

A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that, between June 2020 and June 2021, there were more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States. Of these, more than 73,000 were attributed to opioids and more than 60,000 to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Most opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States are attributable to synthetic opioids “that can unexpectedly cause respiratory depression by being ingested as a substitute for heroin or with [other] drugs,” Indivior noted in a press release.

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist that “binds with high affinity to mu-opioid receptors but displays partial respiratory depression effects,” the investigators wrote.

As reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine extended release (Sublocade, Indivior) in 2017 as the first once-monthly injection for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

In the current study, which was conducted in Leiden, the Netherlands, the investigators used continuous intravenous buprenorphine in order to “mimic” the sustained plasma concentrations of the drug that can be delivered with the long-acting injectable, noted Christian Heidbreder, PhD, chief scientific officer at Indivior.

“This was an experimental medicine study, whereby we used intravenous buprenorphine to really understand the interaction with escalating doses of fentanyl” on respiratory depression, he told this news organization.
 

Two-part, two-period study

In part A, period one of the two-period crossover study, 14 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive for 360 minutes continuous infusion of 0.02 or 0.05 mg/70 kg per hour of buprenorphine to target plasma concentrations of 0.2 or 0.5 ng/mL, respectively, or matching placebo. In the second period, participants received the alternative infusion – either placebo or the active drug.

In part B, eight opioid-tolerant patients who had used high-dose opioids for at least 3 months prior received a higher infusion rate of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg/70 kg per hour to target plasma concentrations of 1, 2, or 5 ng/mL, respectively.

The 2 ng/mL “is a very important threshold for us” and the result from several previous experiments, Dr. Heidbreder noted. So the investigators targeted that concentration as well as one below and one “much higher” in the current study.

“Because tolerance to opioid effects is poorly characterized in patients receiving long-term opioids, opioid-tolerant participants in part B had a fixed treatment sequence, receiving placebo infusion plus fentanyl challenges in period 1 to optimize the fentanyl dose escalation before buprenorphine and fentanyl were coadministered in period 2,” the investigators reported.

All participants received up to four escalating doses of intravenous fentanyl after reaching target buprenorphine plasma concentrations.

For healthy volunteers, the planned fentanyl doses were 0.075, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 mg/70 kg. For the opioid-tolerant patients, the doses were 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, and 0.7 mg/70 kg.

The infusions began after baseline VE had stabilized at 20 plus or minus 2 L/min, which is about four times above normal resting VE.
 

First clinical evidence?

Results showed fentanyl-induced adverse changes in VE were less at higher concentrations of buprenorphine plasma.

Opioid-tolerant patients receiving the 2.0 ng/mL concentration of buprenorphine had a 33.7% decrease in highest dose fentanyl-induced VE versus an 82.3% decrease when receiving placebo.

In addition, fentanyl reduced VE up to 49% (95% confidence interval, 21%-76%) in opioid-tolerant patients in all buprenorphine concentration groups combined versus reducing VE up to 100% (95% CI, 68%-132%) during placebo infusion (P = .006).

In addition, buprenorphine was associated with a lower risk versus placebo for apnea requiring verbal stimulation after fentanyl dosing (odds ratio, 0.07; P = .001).

For the healthy volunteers, the first fentanyl bolus reduced VE by 26% for those at target buprenorphine concentration of 0.5 ng/mL versus 51% when receiving placebo (P = .001). The second bolus reduced VE by 47% versus 79%, respectively (P < .001).

“Discontinuations for apnea limited treatment comparisons beyond the second fentanyl injection,” the investigators reported.

Overall, the findings “provide the first clinical evidence that high sustained plasma concentrations of buprenorphine may protect against respiratory depression induced by potent opioids,” they added.

Additional research is now “warranted to assess the competitive interaction of buprenorphine and fentanyl (as well as other illicitly manufactured fentanyl analogs) as we continue to deepen our understanding of buprenorphine as an evidence-based treatment for patients struggling with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Heidbreder said in a press release.

It’s unclear whether the study’s findings are generalizable to other populations, said Dr. Heidbreder.

“So what we are going to do next is to see what is actually happening in a real world, much broader patient population; and for that we’ll be using [the injectable] Sublocade as the medication of choice,” said Dr. Heidbreder.

“Conceptually, we feel confident about these data, but now we need to demonstrate what is happening in the real world,” he added.

The study was funded by Indivior. Dr. Groeneveld has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heidbreder is an employee of Indivior.

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

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

Moderna announced today that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has received full Food and Drug Administration approval for adults 18 years and older.

The move lifts an FDA emergency use authorization for the vaccine, which started Dec. 18, 2020.

The Moderna vaccine also now has a new trade name: Spikevax.

The FDA approval comes a little more than 5 months after the agency granted full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 23. At the time, the Pfizer vaccine received the trade name Comirnaty.

The FDA approved the Moderna vaccine based on how well it works and its safety for 6 months after a second dose, including follow-up data from a phase 3 study, Moderna announced this morning through a news release. The FDA also announced the news.

Spikevax is the first Moderna product to be fully licensed in the United States.

The United States joins more than 70 other countries where regulators have approved the vaccine. A total of 807 million doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine were shipped worldwide in 2021, the company reported.

“The full licensure of Spikevax in the U.S. now joins that in Canada, Japan, the European Union, the U.K., Israel, and other countries, where the adolescent indication is also approved,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna chief executive officer, said in the release.

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and star of TV’s Shark Tank, is backing a new online pharmacy that aims to reduce the prices people pay for 100 generic medications.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company (MCCPDC) plans to offer the leukemia therapy imatinib for $47 per month, for example, compared with $120 or more with a common voucher and a retail price of $9,657 per month.

Other examples of lower-priced generics include the ulcerative colitis treatment mesalamine, which goes for $32.40 per month on the new online pharmacy versus $940 per month retail. In addition, the MCCPDC will offer the gout treatment colchicine at a lower price, charging $8.70, compared with $182 per month retail.

Likely in part because of claims of significant cost savings and in part because of Mr. Cuban’s celebrity status, the new venture is getting widespread media attention. Forbes, NPR, and TMZ have shared the news since the new digital pharmacy was announced earlier this month.

The new venture plans to charge consumers 15% above the manufacturing cost for the generic medications, plus a $3 fee for pharmacists and $5 for shipping. People will still require a prescription from their doctor to get the medications.
 

Generic pricing and social benefit

The top 100 generic products account for about half of generic sales, and there is enough competition for these high-demand medications that “the prices have come down close to zero,” said William Comanor, PhD, a health economist and professor of health policy and management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The remaining generic agents have lower-volume demand.

One prominent example is Daraprim, a decades-old treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The drug jumped into the spotlight in 2015 when Martin Shkreli and his company Vyera Pharmaceuticals bought the rights to make the generic drug and raised the price overnight from $13.50 to $750. In January 2022, a U.S. judge banned Mr. Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry and ordered him to pay an almost $65 million fine.

Dr. Comanor agreed the price should have been raised – $13.50 “was not economically viable” – but not as steep as $750.

“Say Mark Cuban says he will cut the price from $750 to $300. He will still make money. There is a market for these low-volume products,” he said. “There would also be a social benefit.”
 

A direct-to-consumer digital pharmacy

MCCPDC is “cutting out the middleman” in two ways. The business model calls for charging consumers out of pocket, so insurance companies are not involved. Also, the company created its own pharmacy business manager firm in October 2021, allowing it to negotiate prices with drugmakers in house.

The company also announced plans to complete construction of a 22,000-square-foot pharmaceutical factory in Dallas by the end of 2022.

Reactions on social media ranged from celebratory to people disappointed their generic medication would not cost significantly less or is not provided by the digital pharmacy.

When weighted by the number of prescriptions, prices for generics have declined in the United States.

“Overall, U.S. generic prices are the lowest in the world,” Dr. Comanor said. “People say U.S. drug prices are the highest in the world. That’s true for branded, but it’s not true for generics.

“So if someone asks if U.S. drug prices are the highest or lowest in the world, the answer is both,” he said.

“Maybe there is a role to play for this new pharmacy,” Dr. Comanor said when asked if the initiative seems like a positive development.

The state of California also announced plans to provide its own generic drugs, he said.

“But you won’t see a lot of entrepreneurs getting into this because the volumes are so low. If Cuban called me, I would tell him to provide Daraprim and similar, low-volume products,” Dr. Comanor said of the billionaire. “He’s a rich guy; maybe he can do it.”

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

A new study of thousands of women has found that sticking to recommended healthy dietary patterns can lessen the risk of new-onset gout.

“The identification of multiple patterns of eating that can similarly reduce a woman’s risk of incident gout in our study allows more choice for potential personalization of dietary recommendations according to culinary traditions and personal preferences to enhance adherence,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors wrote. The study was published Jan. 31, 2022, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

To determine whether consistent healthy eating plays a role in preventing gout in women, the authors launched a prospective cohort study tied to the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing endeavor that has been questioning its participants’ food and beverage intake since 1984. Based on the 2020 to 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, four healthy eating patterns were identified for assessment: the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), the Mediterranean diet, the Alternative Healthy Eating Index, and the Prudent diet, as well as the unhealthy Western dietary pattern for comparison.

Over 34 years of follow-up, the researchers identified 3,890 cases of gout among 80,039 women with an average age of 50.5 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 25.0 kg/m². Women who strongly adhered to either of the four healthy dietary patterns had a significantly lower risk of gout, especially those who stuck to DASH (multivariable hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.76) and Prudent (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90). In contrast, women with high Western diet scores had a 49% increased risk of gout (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68), compared with those who had low scores.

After additional analysis that factored in variables like diuretic use, alcohol use, and obesity, the associations between each diet and their risk of gout persisted in almost every instance. In particular, the most DASH-adherent women with normal BMI had a 68% lower risk of gout (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.38), compared with the least-adherent women who were overweight or obese. Strong DASH adherence and no diuretic use also led to a 65% gout risk reduction (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.41).
 

Healthy eating offers broad benefits for gout patients

“These results are consistent with a lot of the conversations we have on a day-to-day basis with patients,” Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. “But I will say, I don’t get a lot of patients coming in saying: ‘Hey, what can I do to prevent gout?’ You’re usually seeing them after the fact.”

“These results shouldn’t be confused with that,” he said. “In other words, I wouldn’t want people interpreting this study to mean diet is always a satisfactory treatment for someone with established gout. The fact of the matter is, often it’s not. We need medication to effectively treat gout. I think this and other studies like it call for future research that can look at these dietary interventions as either standalone or probably adjuvant therapies in gout treatment.”

But, he added, that doesn’t mean conversations about diet aren’t of the utmost importance for gout patients.

“That shouldn’t stop clinicians from talking to patients about dietary changes that holistically are going to have positive benefits,” he said. “By the time you meet them, gout patients often already have other health conditions: high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. The dietary changes that these authors studied are going to have a holistic benefit that goes well beyond gout risk, and that’s important. That’s a conversation that physicians and health care providers can and should be having right now with their patients.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the unmeasured or residual confounding that could come with any observational study as well as these rates of gout and these dietary patterns not necessarily being representative of a random sample of American women. “Future research could examine the population contributions of diets and other risk factors for incident female gout, as done in men.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants from the NIH and grants and personal fees from other organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mikuls reported receiving past funding from Horizon Therapeutics and serving for them in a consulting capacity.

A new study of thousands of women has found that sticking to recommended healthy dietary patterns can lessen the risk of new-onset gout.

“The identification of multiple patterns of eating that can similarly reduce a woman’s risk of incident gout in our study allows more choice for potential personalization of dietary recommendations according to culinary traditions and personal preferences to enhance adherence,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors wrote. The study was published Jan. 31, 2022, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

To determine whether consistent healthy eating plays a role in preventing gout in women, the authors launched a prospective cohort study tied to the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing endeavor that has been questioning its participants’ food and beverage intake since 1984. Based on the 2020 to 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, four healthy eating patterns were identified for assessment: the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), the Mediterranean diet, the Alternative Healthy Eating Index, and the Prudent diet, as well as the unhealthy Western dietary pattern for comparison.

Over 34 years of follow-up, the researchers identified 3,890 cases of gout among 80,039 women with an average age of 50.5 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 25.0 kg/m². Women who strongly adhered to either of the four healthy dietary patterns had a significantly lower risk of gout, especially those who stuck to DASH (multivariable hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.76) and Prudent (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90). In contrast, women with high Western diet scores had a 49% increased risk of gout (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68), compared with those who had low scores.

After additional analysis that factored in variables like diuretic use, alcohol use, and obesity, the associations between each diet and their risk of gout persisted in almost every instance. In particular, the most DASH-adherent women with normal BMI had a 68% lower risk of gout (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.38), compared with the least-adherent women who were overweight or obese. Strong DASH adherence and no diuretic use also led to a 65% gout risk reduction (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.41).
 

Healthy eating offers broad benefits for gout patients

“These results are consistent with a lot of the conversations we have on a day-to-day basis with patients,” Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. “But I will say, I don’t get a lot of patients coming in saying: ‘Hey, what can I do to prevent gout?’ You’re usually seeing them after the fact.”

“These results shouldn’t be confused with that,” he said. “In other words, I wouldn’t want people interpreting this study to mean diet is always a satisfactory treatment for someone with established gout. The fact of the matter is, often it’s not. We need medication to effectively treat gout. I think this and other studies like it call for future research that can look at these dietary interventions as either standalone or probably adjuvant therapies in gout treatment.”

But, he added, that doesn’t mean conversations about diet aren’t of the utmost importance for gout patients.

“That shouldn’t stop clinicians from talking to patients about dietary changes that holistically are going to have positive benefits,” he said. “By the time you meet them, gout patients often already have other health conditions: high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. The dietary changes that these authors studied are going to have a holistic benefit that goes well beyond gout risk, and that’s important. That’s a conversation that physicians and health care providers can and should be having right now with their patients.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the unmeasured or residual confounding that could come with any observational study as well as these rates of gout and these dietary patterns not necessarily being representative of a random sample of American women. “Future research could examine the population contributions of diets and other risk factors for incident female gout, as done in men.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants from the NIH and grants and personal fees from other organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mikuls reported receiving past funding from Horizon Therapeutics and serving for them in a consulting capacity.

A new study of thousands of women has found that sticking to recommended healthy dietary patterns can lessen the risk of new-onset gout.

“The identification of multiple patterns of eating that can similarly reduce a woman’s risk of incident gout in our study allows more choice for potential personalization of dietary recommendations according to culinary traditions and personal preferences to enhance adherence,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors wrote. The study was published Jan. 31, 2022, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

To determine whether consistent healthy eating plays a role in preventing gout in women, the authors launched a prospective cohort study tied to the Nurses’ Health Study, an ongoing endeavor that has been questioning its participants’ food and beverage intake since 1984. Based on the 2020 to 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, four healthy eating patterns were identified for assessment: the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), the Mediterranean diet, the Alternative Healthy Eating Index, and the Prudent diet, as well as the unhealthy Western dietary pattern for comparison.

Over 34 years of follow-up, the researchers identified 3,890 cases of gout among 80,039 women with an average age of 50.5 and an average body mass index (BMI) of 25.0 kg/m². Women who strongly adhered to either of the four healthy dietary patterns had a significantly lower risk of gout, especially those who stuck to DASH (multivariable hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.76) and Prudent (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90). In contrast, women with high Western diet scores had a 49% increased risk of gout (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68), compared with those who had low scores.

After additional analysis that factored in variables like diuretic use, alcohol use, and obesity, the associations between each diet and their risk of gout persisted in almost every instance. In particular, the most DASH-adherent women with normal BMI had a 68% lower risk of gout (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.38), compared with the least-adherent women who were overweight or obese. Strong DASH adherence and no diuretic use also led to a 65% gout risk reduction (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.41).
 

Healthy eating offers broad benefits for gout patients

“These results are consistent with a lot of the conversations we have on a day-to-day basis with patients,” Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. “But I will say, I don’t get a lot of patients coming in saying: ‘Hey, what can I do to prevent gout?’ You’re usually seeing them after the fact.”

“These results shouldn’t be confused with that,” he said. “In other words, I wouldn’t want people interpreting this study to mean diet is always a satisfactory treatment for someone with established gout. The fact of the matter is, often it’s not. We need medication to effectively treat gout. I think this and other studies like it call for future research that can look at these dietary interventions as either standalone or probably adjuvant therapies in gout treatment.”

But, he added, that doesn’t mean conversations about diet aren’t of the utmost importance for gout patients.

“That shouldn’t stop clinicians from talking to patients about dietary changes that holistically are going to have positive benefits,” he said. “By the time you meet them, gout patients often already have other health conditions: high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity. The dietary changes that these authors studied are going to have a holistic benefit that goes well beyond gout risk, and that’s important. That’s a conversation that physicians and health care providers can and should be having right now with their patients.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the unmeasured or residual confounding that could come with any observational study as well as these rates of gout and these dietary patterns not necessarily being representative of a random sample of American women. “Future research could examine the population contributions of diets and other risk factors for incident female gout, as done in men.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants from the NIH and grants and personal fees from other organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mikuls reported receiving past funding from Horizon Therapeutics and serving for them in a consulting capacity.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Long story short, we still have a lot to learn about long COVID-19.

But it is a real phenomenon with real long-term health effects for people recovering from coronavirus infections. And diagnosing and managing it can get tricky, as some symptoms of long COVID-19 overlap with those of other conditions – and what many people have as they recover from any challenging stay in the ICU.

Risk factors remain largely unknown as well: What makes one person more likely to have symptoms like fatigue, “brain fog,” or headaches versus someone else? Researchers are just starting to offer some intriguing answers, but the evidence is preliminary at this point, experts said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Unanswered questions include: Does an autoimmune reaction drive long COVID? Does the coronavirus linger in reservoirs within the body and reactivate later? What protection against long COVID do vaccines and treatments offer, if any?

To get a handle on these and other questions, nailing down a standard definition of long COVID would be a good start.

“Studies so far have used different definitions of long COVID,” Nahid Bhadelia, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research, said during the briefing.

Fatigue is the most commonly symptom of long COVID in research so far, said Dr. Bhadelia, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Boston University.

“What’s difficult in this situation is it’s been 2 years in a global pandemic. We’re all fatigued. How do you tease this apart?” she asked.

Other common symptoms are a hard time thinking quickly – also known as “brain fog” – and the feeling that, despite normal oxygen levels, breathing is difficult, said Kathleen Bell, MD.

Headache, joint and muscle pain, and persistent loss of smell and taste are also widely reported, said Dr. Bell, a professor and chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Not all the symptoms are physical either.

“Pretty prominent things that we’re seeing are very high levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia,” Dr. Bell said. These “actually seem to be associated independently with the virus as opposed to just being a completely reactive component.”

More research will be needed to distinguish the causes of these conditions.
 

A difficult diagnosis

Without a standard definition, the wide range of symptoms, and the lack of specific guidance on how to manage them, contribute to making it more challenging to distinguish long COVID from other conditions, the experts said.

“We are starting to see some interesting features of inaccurate attributions to COVID, both on the part of perhaps the person with long COVID symptoms and health care providers,” Dr. Bell said.“It’s sometimes a little difficult to sort it out.”

Dr. Bell said she was not suggesting misdiagnoses are common, “but it is difficult for physicians that don’t see a lot of people with long COVID.”

The advice is to consider other conditions. “You can have both a long COVID syndrome and other syndromes as well,” she said. “As one of my teachers used to say: ‘You can have both ticks and fleas.’ ”
 

Predicting long COVID

In a study getting attention, researchers identified four early things linked to greater chances that someone with COVID-19 will have long-term effects: type 2 diabetes at the time of diagnosis, the presence of specific autoantibodies, unusual levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood, and signs of the Epstein-Barr virus in the blood.

The study, published in Cell, followed 309 people 2-3 months after COVID-19.

“That’s important work, but it’s early work,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “I think we still have a while to go in terms of understanding the mechanism of long COVID.”
 

Unexpected patients getting long COVID care

“We are seeing different populations than we all expected to see when this pandemic first started,” Dr. Bell said.

Instead of seeing primarily patients who had severe COVID-19, “the preponderance of people that we’re seeing in long COVID clinics are people who are enabled, were never hospitalized, and have what people might call mild to moderate cases of coronavirus infection,” she said.

Also, instead of just older patients, people of all ages are seeking long COVID care.

One thing that appears more certain is a lack of diversity in people seeking care at long COVID clinics nationwide.

“Many of us who have long COVID specialty clinics will tell you that we are tending to see fairly educated, socioeconomically stable population in these clinics,” Dr. Bell said. “We know that based on the early statistics of who’s getting COVID and having significant COVID that we may not be seeing those populations for follow-up.”
 

Is an autoinflammatory process to blame?

It remains unclear if a hyperinflammatory response is driving persistent post–COVID-19 symptoms. Children and some adults have developed multisystem inflammatory conditions associated with COVID-19, for example.

There is a signal, and “I think there is enough data now to show something does happen,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “The question is, how often does it happen?”

Spending time in critical care, even without COVID-19, can result in persistent symptoms after a hospital stay, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recovery can take time because being in an ICU is “basically the physiologically equivalent of a car crash,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “So you’re recovering from that, too.”

Dr. Bell agreed. “You’re not only recovering from the virus itself, you’re recovering from intubation, secondary infections, secondary lung conditions, perhaps other organ failure, and prolonged bed rest. There are so many things that go into that, that it’s a little bit hard to sort that out from what long COVID is and what the direct effects of the virus are.”
 

Also a research opportunity

“I hate to call it this, but we’ve never had an opportunity [where] we have so many people in such a short amount of time with the same viral disorder,” Dr. Bell said. “We also have the technology to investigate it. This has never happened.

“SARS-CoV-2 is not the only virus. This is just the only one we’ve gotten whacked with in such a huge quantity at one time,” she said.

What researchers learn now about COVID-19 and long COVID “is a model that’s going to be able to be applied in the future to infectious diseases in general,” Dr. Bell predicted.
 

How long will long COVID last?

The vast majority of people with long COVID will get better over time, given enough support and relief of their symptoms, Dr. Bell said.

Type 2 diabetes, preexisting pulmonary disease, and other things could affect how long it takes to recover from long COVID, she said, although more evidence is needed.

“I don’t think at this point that anyone can say how long this long COVID will last because there are a variety of factors,” Dr. Bell said.

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

Long story short, we still have a lot to learn about long COVID-19.

But it is a real phenomenon with real long-term health effects for people recovering from coronavirus infections. And diagnosing and managing it can get tricky, as some symptoms of long COVID-19 overlap with those of other conditions – and what many people have as they recover from any challenging stay in the ICU.

Risk factors remain largely unknown as well: What makes one person more likely to have symptoms like fatigue, “brain fog,” or headaches versus someone else? Researchers are just starting to offer some intriguing answers, but the evidence is preliminary at this point, experts said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Unanswered questions include: Does an autoimmune reaction drive long COVID? Does the coronavirus linger in reservoirs within the body and reactivate later? What protection against long COVID do vaccines and treatments offer, if any?

To get a handle on these and other questions, nailing down a standard definition of long COVID would be a good start.

“Studies so far have used different definitions of long COVID,” Nahid Bhadelia, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research, said during the briefing.

Fatigue is the most commonly symptom of long COVID in research so far, said Dr. Bhadelia, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Boston University.

“What’s difficult in this situation is it’s been 2 years in a global pandemic. We’re all fatigued. How do you tease this apart?” she asked.

Other common symptoms are a hard time thinking quickly – also known as “brain fog” – and the feeling that, despite normal oxygen levels, breathing is difficult, said Kathleen Bell, MD.

Headache, joint and muscle pain, and persistent loss of smell and taste are also widely reported, said Dr. Bell, a professor and chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Not all the symptoms are physical either.

“Pretty prominent things that we’re seeing are very high levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia,” Dr. Bell said. These “actually seem to be associated independently with the virus as opposed to just being a completely reactive component.”

More research will be needed to distinguish the causes of these conditions.
 

A difficult diagnosis

Without a standard definition, the wide range of symptoms, and the lack of specific guidance on how to manage them, contribute to making it more challenging to distinguish long COVID from other conditions, the experts said.

“We are starting to see some interesting features of inaccurate attributions to COVID, both on the part of perhaps the person with long COVID symptoms and health care providers,” Dr. Bell said.“It’s sometimes a little difficult to sort it out.”

Dr. Bell said she was not suggesting misdiagnoses are common, “but it is difficult for physicians that don’t see a lot of people with long COVID.”

The advice is to consider other conditions. “You can have both a long COVID syndrome and other syndromes as well,” she said. “As one of my teachers used to say: ‘You can have both ticks and fleas.’ ”
 

Predicting long COVID

In a study getting attention, researchers identified four early things linked to greater chances that someone with COVID-19 will have long-term effects: type 2 diabetes at the time of diagnosis, the presence of specific autoantibodies, unusual levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood, and signs of the Epstein-Barr virus in the blood.

The study, published in Cell, followed 309 people 2-3 months after COVID-19.

“That’s important work, but it’s early work,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “I think we still have a while to go in terms of understanding the mechanism of long COVID.”
 

Unexpected patients getting long COVID care

“We are seeing different populations than we all expected to see when this pandemic first started,” Dr. Bell said.

Instead of seeing primarily patients who had severe COVID-19, “the preponderance of people that we’re seeing in long COVID clinics are people who are enabled, were never hospitalized, and have what people might call mild to moderate cases of coronavirus infection,” she said.

Also, instead of just older patients, people of all ages are seeking long COVID care.

One thing that appears more certain is a lack of diversity in people seeking care at long COVID clinics nationwide.

“Many of us who have long COVID specialty clinics will tell you that we are tending to see fairly educated, socioeconomically stable population in these clinics,” Dr. Bell said. “We know that based on the early statistics of who’s getting COVID and having significant COVID that we may not be seeing those populations for follow-up.”
 

Is an autoinflammatory process to blame?

It remains unclear if a hyperinflammatory response is driving persistent post–COVID-19 symptoms. Children and some adults have developed multisystem inflammatory conditions associated with COVID-19, for example.

There is a signal, and “I think there is enough data now to show something does happen,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “The question is, how often does it happen?”

Spending time in critical care, even without COVID-19, can result in persistent symptoms after a hospital stay, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recovery can take time because being in an ICU is “basically the physiologically equivalent of a car crash,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “So you’re recovering from that, too.”

Dr. Bell agreed. “You’re not only recovering from the virus itself, you’re recovering from intubation, secondary infections, secondary lung conditions, perhaps other organ failure, and prolonged bed rest. There are so many things that go into that, that it’s a little bit hard to sort that out from what long COVID is and what the direct effects of the virus are.”
 

Also a research opportunity

“I hate to call it this, but we’ve never had an opportunity [where] we have so many people in such a short amount of time with the same viral disorder,” Dr. Bell said. “We also have the technology to investigate it. This has never happened.

“SARS-CoV-2 is not the only virus. This is just the only one we’ve gotten whacked with in such a huge quantity at one time,” she said.

What researchers learn now about COVID-19 and long COVID “is a model that’s going to be able to be applied in the future to infectious diseases in general,” Dr. Bell predicted.
 

How long will long COVID last?

The vast majority of people with long COVID will get better over time, given enough support and relief of their symptoms, Dr. Bell said.

Type 2 diabetes, preexisting pulmonary disease, and other things could affect how long it takes to recover from long COVID, she said, although more evidence is needed.

“I don’t think at this point that anyone can say how long this long COVID will last because there are a variety of factors,” Dr. Bell said.

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

Long story short, we still have a lot to learn about long COVID-19.

But it is a real phenomenon with real long-term health effects for people recovering from coronavirus infections. And diagnosing and managing it can get tricky, as some symptoms of long COVID-19 overlap with those of other conditions – and what many people have as they recover from any challenging stay in the ICU.

Risk factors remain largely unknown as well: What makes one person more likely to have symptoms like fatigue, “brain fog,” or headaches versus someone else? Researchers are just starting to offer some intriguing answers, but the evidence is preliminary at this point, experts said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Unanswered questions include: Does an autoimmune reaction drive long COVID? Does the coronavirus linger in reservoirs within the body and reactivate later? What protection against long COVID do vaccines and treatments offer, if any?

To get a handle on these and other questions, nailing down a standard definition of long COVID would be a good start.

“Studies so far have used different definitions of long COVID,” Nahid Bhadelia, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Policy and Research, said during the briefing.

Fatigue is the most commonly symptom of long COVID in research so far, said Dr. Bhadelia, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Boston University.

“What’s difficult in this situation is it’s been 2 years in a global pandemic. We’re all fatigued. How do you tease this apart?” she asked.

Other common symptoms are a hard time thinking quickly – also known as “brain fog” – and the feeling that, despite normal oxygen levels, breathing is difficult, said Kathleen Bell, MD.

Headache, joint and muscle pain, and persistent loss of smell and taste are also widely reported, said Dr. Bell, a professor and chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Not all the symptoms are physical either.

“Pretty prominent things that we’re seeing are very high levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia,” Dr. Bell said. These “actually seem to be associated independently with the virus as opposed to just being a completely reactive component.”

More research will be needed to distinguish the causes of these conditions.
 

A difficult diagnosis

Without a standard definition, the wide range of symptoms, and the lack of specific guidance on how to manage them, contribute to making it more challenging to distinguish long COVID from other conditions, the experts said.

“We are starting to see some interesting features of inaccurate attributions to COVID, both on the part of perhaps the person with long COVID symptoms and health care providers,” Dr. Bell said.“It’s sometimes a little difficult to sort it out.”

Dr. Bell said she was not suggesting misdiagnoses are common, “but it is difficult for physicians that don’t see a lot of people with long COVID.”

The advice is to consider other conditions. “You can have both a long COVID syndrome and other syndromes as well,” she said. “As one of my teachers used to say: ‘You can have both ticks and fleas.’ ”
 

Predicting long COVID

In a study getting attention, researchers identified four early things linked to greater chances that someone with COVID-19 will have long-term effects: type 2 diabetes at the time of diagnosis, the presence of specific autoantibodies, unusual levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the blood, and signs of the Epstein-Barr virus in the blood.

The study, published in Cell, followed 309 people 2-3 months after COVID-19.

“That’s important work, but it’s early work,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “I think we still have a while to go in terms of understanding the mechanism of long COVID.”
 

Unexpected patients getting long COVID care

“We are seeing different populations than we all expected to see when this pandemic first started,” Dr. Bell said.

Instead of seeing primarily patients who had severe COVID-19, “the preponderance of people that we’re seeing in long COVID clinics are people who are enabled, were never hospitalized, and have what people might call mild to moderate cases of coronavirus infection,” she said.

Also, instead of just older patients, people of all ages are seeking long COVID care.

One thing that appears more certain is a lack of diversity in people seeking care at long COVID clinics nationwide.

“Many of us who have long COVID specialty clinics will tell you that we are tending to see fairly educated, socioeconomically stable population in these clinics,” Dr. Bell said. “We know that based on the early statistics of who’s getting COVID and having significant COVID that we may not be seeing those populations for follow-up.”
 

Is an autoinflammatory process to blame?

It remains unclear if a hyperinflammatory response is driving persistent post–COVID-19 symptoms. Children and some adults have developed multisystem inflammatory conditions associated with COVID-19, for example.

There is a signal, and “I think there is enough data now to show something does happen,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “The question is, how often does it happen?”

Spending time in critical care, even without COVID-19, can result in persistent symptoms after a hospital stay, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recovery can take time because being in an ICU is “basically the physiologically equivalent of a car crash,” Dr. Bhadelia said. “So you’re recovering from that, too.”

Dr. Bell agreed. “You’re not only recovering from the virus itself, you’re recovering from intubation, secondary infections, secondary lung conditions, perhaps other organ failure, and prolonged bed rest. There are so many things that go into that, that it’s a little bit hard to sort that out from what long COVID is and what the direct effects of the virus are.”
 

Also a research opportunity

“I hate to call it this, but we’ve never had an opportunity [where] we have so many people in such a short amount of time with the same viral disorder,” Dr. Bell said. “We also have the technology to investigate it. This has never happened.

“SARS-CoV-2 is not the only virus. This is just the only one we’ve gotten whacked with in such a huge quantity at one time,” she said.

What researchers learn now about COVID-19 and long COVID “is a model that’s going to be able to be applied in the future to infectious diseases in general,” Dr. Bell predicted.
 

How long will long COVID last?

The vast majority of people with long COVID will get better over time, given enough support and relief of their symptoms, Dr. Bell said.

Type 2 diabetes, preexisting pulmonary disease, and other things could affect how long it takes to recover from long COVID, she said, although more evidence is needed.

“I don’t think at this point that anyone can say how long this long COVID will last because there are a variety of factors,” Dr. Bell said.

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