MDedge Rheumatology

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The United States has now reported more than 450,000 COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic, adding 3,912 more on Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Daily COVID-19 deaths still remain high in the United States, though they’ve decreased slightly from the peak of 4,466 deaths on Jan. 12.

The United States also reported more than 121,000 new COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, which is down from a peak of more than 300,000 new cases on Tuesday. In total, more than 26.5 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with COVID-19, making up a quarter of the 104.5 million cases reported worldwide.

The 7-day average for COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths continues to decline, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The 7-day average for hospitalizations is around 96,500, and the 7-day average for deaths is about 3,000. With the exception of Vermont, all states and territories have reported declines or no changes in their hospitalizations and deaths.

“We have seen the 7-day average for new deaths decrease for over a week. At the same time, states are reporting an average of 3,000 people dying per day,” the COVID Tracking Project wrote in a post on Twitter. “The data is hopeful and devastating.”

More than 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide. The United States continues to report the most deaths, followed by Brazil with 227,500, Mexico with 161,200, and India with 154,700 deaths.

The U.S. COVID-19 death toll could reach 496,000-534,000 by the end of February, according to a new forecast by the CDC, which includes models from 36 national groups. Deaths will likely decrease during the next 4 weeks, with about 11,300-22,600 deaths possibly reported during the last week of February.

The 534,000 total would equal about 1 death for every minute of the pandemic, according to CNN, given that the first U.S. death was reported on Feb. 29 last year.

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The final numbers won’t look much different, but the 2021 Match results will be unlike any before. As of mid-January, only 16 more institutions were confirmed to be participating in Match Day this year, resulting in about 800 more positions, said Donna Lamb, president and CEO of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The Electronic Residency Application Service reported about 50,000 individual applicant submissions, a slight increase from prior years.

The stats may be similar, but the current residency application cycle may lead to wildly different results after the pandemic forced interviews to be conducted virtually and caused the cancellation of most away clinical rotations. Troy Amen, a fifth-year MD-MBA student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and copresident of his student class, says the lack of on-campus, in-person experiences means students feel more in the dark than ever. The same is true for institutions. “The programs are also suffering because now they don’t know which students are a good ‘cultural fit’ for them,” he said.

Standing out has always been a concern for prospective residents, but Mr. Amen says fears are even higher this year. “[Institutions are] struggling to vet out 850 applicants, and they have no connection to us.”

Organizations have scrambled to keep the process as fair and informative as possible. “Everyone is trying to do the right thing here,” said Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). She says that although the process has significantly changed, the heart of it remains the same. “The bottom line is directors really want to fill their intern class, and schools and students really want to match.”

Since the NRMP was established in 1952, it has never had to contend with a pandemic of this scale. The unprecedented circumstances have led to some much-feared and some unexpected changes, like top candidates “stealing” interview slots, “swag bags” sent to entice residents, beefed-up online profiles, as well as “Zoom fatigue,” a spike in home-field advantage for institutions, and massive anxiety for those students staking their future to a city they may have never seen in person.
 

What was lost and what was gained

“It’s really hard to get a real feel for the program when you’ve not been there in person,” said Christopher Smith, MD, director of the internal medicine residency program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Smith recalled interviewing for residencies 25 years ago. His wife, a teacher, took time off to travel with him.

“She would ‘interview the town’ while I interviewed the program, and we compared notes at night,” he said. Because of COVID-19-related travel restrictions, just physically seeing the city in which they may live for years wasn’t an option for many. “I have a lot of sympathy for students applying right now,” Dr. Smith said.

For the residency class of 2021, the first shoe really dropped last March, when the AAMC issued guidance strongly recommending that programs pause clinical rotations away from their home schools. As established doctors know well, and as graduating medical students confirmed, these rotations are crucial to understanding a program’s culture and gaining experience that can boost candidacy. “I’m applying to orthopedic surgery, where away rotations are the gold standard for impressing attendees and residents at institutions away from home,” said Mr. Amen.

The pandemic completely cut off that key source of information to determine the right fit. It also meant applicants couldn’t have as diverse a portfolio of recommendation letters, something many worry may be detrimental to their soon-to-be-released Match rankings.

Unlike the loss of away rotations, the forced shift from in-person to virtual interviews had some meaningful benefits. Students no longer incurred expenses for airline flights, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Many organizations and programs have been trying for years to figure out how to lower the financial burden of interviews to make the process more equitable for those at economic or other disadvantage.

“The equity piece of this is huge – decreasing barriers and leveling the field a little bit is a really huge advantage,” said Kate Shaw, MD, residency program director and associate chair of education for the obstetrics and gynecology program at Stanford (Calif.) University. In some ways, this latest change is an extension of a strategy Dr. Shaw and others had already begun implementing.

“Over the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve been working to address the implicit bias in the application process, so we’ve gone to a holistic review of applicants, where we don’t have score cutoffs. We look at the whole person,” she said. “And we did that in an effort to increase diversity and equity.” Dr. Shaw and others hope that the accidental positive changes from COVID restrictions may be intentionally preserved long after the pandemic ends.
 

Home-field advantage vs. swag bags

Many medical students applying to residencies this year say they have given greater weight to their home programs than they might have without the pandemic. “I didn’t get a sense of anyone’s culture other than my home institution,” said Alex Skidmore, a fourth-year medical student at Washington University in St. Louis. “I definitely am ranking Wash-U higher.”

The desire to emphasize the known quality of a student’s home institution isn’t surprising to program directors. Dr. Shaw said she thinks this year’s Match could well end with a higher percentage of students matching either in their home programs or in programs close to loved ones. “The value of being close to family has come up in our conversations, where students are considering the right program for them but also the other life factors,” she said.

To overcome this home-field advantage, many programs have beefed up their websites, including providing video tours of their facilities. They also “upped their social media game” and encouraged residents to create online groups for prospective residents to share information about programs and life outside of work. Some residents even offered video tours of their personal apartments to applicants.

Without in-person access to facilities and staff, a program’s online presence became a deciding factor, applicants said. “If you have a bad website, it’s like having a dirty building to interview applicants in,” Mr. Skidmore said. For many prospective residents, an institution’s Internet presence was a “make or break” factor. “It’s the only thing I saw for many programs, and when we are doing the amount of research we are doing remotely, when I saw a program with a bad website, it made me not like the program as much,” he said.

Some programs, hoping to woo candidates as well as to provide them with more insight into what they and their cities have to offer, sent “swag bags” to candidates. These included things like gift cards for food delivery and offerings from local businesses. Washington University’s pediatrics residency program sent gooey butter cakes – a St. Louis staple – along with other treats from small businesses and copies of magazines that showcased the city’s dining and entertainment scene.

Other programs, even those at the same medical institution, felt quite strongly that those types of packages shouldn’t be sent. “We interviewed almost 500 applicants, so there was no way we could have afforded that,” said Dominique Cosco, MD, director of Washington University’s internal medicine residency program. “Our normal recruitment budget is almost $100,000 in a normal year, and that got cut because of COVID. For us, it was thinking about allocations of resources.”
 

Interview slot theft and zoom fatigue

Remote interviewing also meant that applicants could accept more interviews, something that raised a big concern. Without expenses or travel time, would top-tier candidates take more interviews than normal and thus take limited interview spots from other qualified candidates? Maybe so, says the AAMC’s Dr. Whelan.

“We didn’t have systematic data, but we heard from enough schools and programs ... that students who were maybe not the top-top ranked students in the class but in every way solid were receiving fewer interviews than previous years,” Dr. Whelan said. This is despite guidance that recommended programs add interview slots to serve as a counterbalance.

Some students say they accepted more interview slots in the beginning of the interview season, partly because they could, and partly because some thought of early interviews as “practice” for later interviews. However, as video interviews piled up, some of them described feeling “Zoom fatigue” and said they later canceled interviews with programs they didn’t anticipate joining.
 

More SOAP, less clarity

As for what comes next, the NRMP is preparing for a longer-than-normal Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) than in years past. SOAP usually offers three rounds of matches after the initial Match Day; Ms. Lamb said things are different this year.

“SOAP will be the same number of days, but we’ve added an additional round on Thursday afternoon,” she said. Will it be unnecessary or not enough? Nobody knows. “How big SOAP actually is going to be is one of the things that we really don’t have a sense of right now and probably aren’t going to have a sense of until the Match.”

Uncertainty is the name of the game. More than any other Match before, programs and applicants won’t know how results from this pandemic year stack up for a few months at the very least. “I really want to see what this looks like on the other side,” Dr. Smith said. “Are applicants happy with the way it looks when they come here? Do they feel like they matched with the right place?”

Whether this unprecedented year will be remembered more for positive changes moving forward, including more flexibility on remote interviews, or for less-informed decisions that result in dissatisfied participants is also unclear.

“I think after the Match is over, we’ll be talking to everyone to get more perspective on what people who are applying now would tell the next class, and how programs can adjust,” said Kathy Diemer, MD, assistant dean for career counseling at Washington University. At the very least, those who are involved in this year after year can start thinking about what the future should look like.

“We’re going to need to do some kind of debriefing after this is over, both program directors and our students as well, so we can determine how to move forward next year and beyond.”

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

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Crafoord Foundation in Lund has awarded Daniel Kastner, MD, PhD, its 2021 Crafoord Prize in Polyarthritis, “for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).

Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.

“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.

While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.

[email protected]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Crafoord Foundation in Lund has awarded Daniel Kastner, MD, PhD, its 2021 Crafoord Prize in Polyarthritis, “for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).

Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.

“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.

While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.

[email protected]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Crafoord Foundation in Lund has awarded Daniel Kastner, MD, PhD, its 2021 Crafoord Prize in Polyarthritis, “for establishing the concept of autoinflammatory diseases.” The prize, named after the donor Holger Crafoord because of his bout with severe rheumatoid arthritis toward the end of his life, is for 6 million Swedish kronor (approximately USD $700,000).

Dr. Kastner, scientific director at the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute’s division of intramural research, received the award for identifying the mechanisms responsible for familial Mediterranean fever, tumor necrosis factor receptor–associated periodic syndrome, and other diagnoses within the group of autoinflammatory diseases.

“Dan Kastner is often called the father of autoinflammatory diseases, a title that he thoroughly deserves. His discoveries have taught us a great deal about the immune system and its functions, contributing to effective treatments that reduce the symptoms of diseases from which patients previously suffered enormously, sometimes leading to premature death,” Olle Kämpe, chair of the prize committee, said in a press announcement.

While the Crafoord Prize normally is awarded on a 3-year rotating basis for achievements in mathematics and astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences, the prize in polyarthritis is “only awarded when there has been scientific progress that motivates a prize,” according to the press release.

[email protected]

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.

Thinkstock/ LarsNeumann

If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.

But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.

In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.

As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.

They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.

Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.

After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).

The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.

They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.

There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).

Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.

Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.

The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”

But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.

The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.

Thinkstock/ LarsNeumann

If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.

But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.

In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.

As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.

They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.

Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.

After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).

The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.

They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.

There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).

Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.

Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.

The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”

But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.

The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.

Thinkstock/ LarsNeumann

If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.

But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.

In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.

As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.

They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.

Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.

After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).

The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.

They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.

There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).

Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.

Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.

The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”

But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.

The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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