Clinical Topics & News

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

People with long COVID may have dizziness, headaches, sleep problems, sluggish thinking, and many other problems. But they can also face another problem – stigma.

Most people with long COVID find they’re facing stigma due to their condition, according to a new report from researchers in the United Kingdom. In short: Relatives and friends may not believe they’re truly sick.

The U.K. team found that more than three-quarters of people studied had experienced stigma often or always. 

In fact, 95% of people with long COVID faced at least one type of stigma at least sometimes, according to the study, published in November in the journal PLOS One.

Those conclusions had surprised the study’s lead researcher, Marija Pantelic, PhD, a public health lecturer at Brighton and Sussex Medical School, England.

“After years of working on HIV-related stigma, I was shocked to see how many people were turning a blind eye to and dismissing the difficulties experienced by people with long COVID,” Dr. Pantelic says. “It has also been clear to me from the start that this stigma is detrimental not just for people’s dignity, but also public health.”

Even some doctors argue that the growing attention paid to long COVID is excessive.

“It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weaknesses for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of modern life,” Marty Makary, MD, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal.

Other doctors strongly disagree, including Alba Azola, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team and an expert in the stigma surrounding long COVID.

“Putting that spin on things, it’s just hurting people,” she says.

One example is people who cannot return to work.

“A lot of their family members tell me that they’re being lazy,” Dr. Azola says. “That’s part of the public stigma, that these are people just trying to get out of work.”

Some experts say the U.K. study represents a landmark.

“When you have data like this on long COVID stigma, it becomes more difficult to deny its existence or address it,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. She also is head of research at the New York–based Mental Health Coalition, a group of experts working to end the stigma surrounding mental health.

She recalls her first patient with long COVID.

“She experienced the discomfort and pain itself, and then she had this crushing feeling that it wasn’t valid, or real. She felt very alone in it,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Another one of her patients is working at her job from home but facing doubt about her condition from her employers.

“Every month, her medical doctor has to produce a letter confirming her medical condition,” Dr. Torres-Mackie says.

Taking part in the British stigma survey were 1,166 people, including 966 residents of the United Kingdom, with the average age of 48. Nearly 85% were female, and more than three-quarters were educated at the university level or higher.

Half of them said they had a clinical diagnosis of long COVID.

More than 60% of them said that at least some of the time, they were cautious about who they talked to about their condition. And fully 34% of those who did disclose their diagnosis said that they regretted having done so.

That’s a difficult experience for those with long COVID, says Leonard Jason, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University in Chicago.

“It’s like they’re traumatized by the initial experience of being sick, and retraumatized by the response of others to them,” he says.

Unexplained illnesses are not well-regarded by the general public, Dr. Jason says.

He gave the example of multiple sclerosis. Before the 1980s, those with MS were considered to have a psychological illness, he says. “Then, in the 1980s, there were biomarkers that said, ‘Here’s the evidence.’ ”

The British study described three types of stigma stemming from the long COVID diagnosis of those questioned:

• Enacted stigma: People were directly treated unfairly because of their condition.
• Internalized stigma: People felt embarrassed by that condition.
• Anticipated stigma: People expected they would be treated poorly because of their diagnosis.

Dr. Azola calls the medical community a major problem when it comes to dealing with long COVID.

“What I see with my patients is medical trauma,” she says. They may have symptoms that send them to the emergency room, and then the tests come back negative. “Instead of tracking the patients’ symptoms, patients get told, ‘Everything looks good, you can go home, this is a panic attack,’ ” she says.

Some people go online to search for treatments, sometimes launching GoFundMe campaigns to raise money for unreliable treatments.

Long COVID patients may have gone through 5 to 10 doctors before they arrive for treatment with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team. The clinic began in April 2020 remotely and in August of that year in person.

Today, the clinic staff spends an hour with a first-time long COVID patient, hearing their stories and helping relieve anxiety, Dr. Azola says.

The phenomenon of long COVID is similar to what patients have had with chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, or fibromyalgia, where people have symptoms that are hard to explain, says Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, deputy public health officer for Riverside County, Calif.

“Stigma within medicine or health care is nothing new,” she says.

In Chicago, Dr. Jason notes that the federal government’s decision to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long COVID research “shows the government is helping destigmatize it.”

Dr. Pantelic says she and her colleagues are continuing their research.

“We are interested in understanding the impacts of this stigma, and how to mitigate any adverse outcomes for patients and services,” she says.

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

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Metformin failure in people with type 2 diabetes is very common, particularly among those with high hemoglobin A1c levels at the time of diagnosis, new findings suggest.

An analysis of electronic health record data for more than 22,000 patients starting metformin at three U.S. clinical sites found that over 40% experienced metformin failure.

This was defined as either failure to achieve or maintain A1c less than 7% within 18 months or the use of additional glucose-lowering medications.

Other predictors that metformin use wouldn’t be successful included increasing age, male sex, and race/ethnicity. However, the latter ceased to be linked after adjustment for other clinical risk factors.

“Our study results suggest increased monitoring with potentially earlier treatment intensification to achieve glycemic control may be appropriate in patients with clinical parameters described in this paper,” Suzette J. Bielinski, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

“Further, these results call into question the ubiquitous use of metformin as the first-line therapy and suggest a more individualized approach may be needed to optimize therapy,” they added in their article, published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study is also noteworthy in that it demonstrated the feasibility of using EHR data with a machine-learning approach to discover risk biomarkers, Dr. Bielinski, professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

“We wanted to repurpose clinical data to answer questions ... I think more studies using these types of techniques repurposing data meant for one thing could potentially impact care in other domains. ... If we can get the bang for the buck from all these data that we generate on people I just think it will improve health care and maybe save health care dollars.”
 

Baseline A1c strongest predictor of metformin failure

The investigators identified a total of 22,047 metformin initiators from three clinical primary care sites: the University of Mississippi’s Jackson centers, which serves a mostly African American population, the Mountain Park Health Center in Arizona, a seven-clinic federally qualified community health center in Phoenix that serves a mostly Latino population, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes the Mayo Clinic and serves a primarily White population.  

Overall, a total of 43% (9,407) of patients met one of two criteria for metformin failure by 18 months. Among those, median time to failure on metformin was 3.9 months.

Unadjusted failure rates were higher among African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial groups, compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

However, the racial groups also differed by baseline characteristics. Mean A1c was 7.7% overall, 8.1% for the African American group, 7.9% for Asians, and 8.2% for Hispanics, compared with 7.6% for non-Hispanic Whites.

Of 150 clinical factors examined, higher A1c was the strongest predictor of metformin failure, with a rapid increase in risk appearing between 7.5% and 8.0%.

“The slope is steep. It gives us some clinical guidance,” Dr. Bielinski said.

Other variables positively correlated with metformin failure included “diabetes with complications,” increased age, and higher levels of potassium, triglycerides, heart rate, and mean cell hemoglobin.

Factors inversely correlated with metformin failure were having received screening for other suspected conditions and medical examination/evaluation, and lower levels of sodium, albumin, and HDL cholesterol.  

Three variables – body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and creatinine – had a U-shaped relationship with metformin failure, so that both high and low values were associated with increased risk.

“The racial/ethnic differences disappeared once other clinical factors were considered suggesting that the biological response to metformin is similar regardless of race/ethnicity,” Dr. Bielinski and colleagues wrote.

They also noted that the abnormal lab results which correlated with metformin failure “likely represent biomarkers for chronic illnesses. However, the effect size for lab abnormalities was small compared with that of baseline A1c.”

Dr. Bielinski urged caution in interpreting the findings. “Electronic health records data have limitations. We have evidence that these people were prescribed metformin. We have no idea if they took it. ... I would really be hesitant to be too strong in making clinical recommendations.”

However, she said that the data are “suggestive to say maybe we need to have some kind of threshold where if someone comes in with an A1c of X that they go on dual therapy right away. I think this is opening the door to that.” 

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

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

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

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

Oramed Pharmaceuticals’ investigational oral insulin failed to achieve its primary endpoint in a phase 3 trial, according to top-line results announced by the company.

“Therefore, Oramed expects to discontinue its oral insulin clinical activities for [type 2 diabetes],” according to a company statement.

Top-line results were negative for the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, ORA-D-013-1, comparing the efficacy of the insulin product ORMD-0801 to placebo in 710 people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on two or three oral glucose-lowering agents.

The participants were randomized 2:2:1:1 into ORMD-0801 dosed at 8 mg once or twice daily, or placebo dosed once or twice daily. They completed a 21-day screening period, followed by a 26-week double-blind treatment period.

The product didn’t achieve the primary endpoint comparing reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 26 weeks, or the secondary endpoint of mean change in fasting plasma glucose at 26 weeks. There were no serious adverse events.

Oramed Pharmaceuticals specializes in developing oral delivery formulations of drugs currently delivered via injection. The company has offices in the United States and Israel.

Oramed CEO Nadav Kidron commented in the statement, “Today’s outcome is very disappointing, given the positive results from prior trials. Once full data from the studies are available, we expect to share relevant learnings and future plans. We thank all the patients, families, and health care professionals who participated in the trial.”

Insulin manufacturer Novo Nordisk had also been developing an oral insulin product. Successful phase 2a results were presented at the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 Scientific Sessions and full phase 2 feasibility results were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in 2019.

However, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus), subsequently discontinued development of their oral insulin product. According to a statement, “Initial results raised questions about truly addressing patients’ unmet needs with insulin therapy. Therefore, we discontinued this work to focus on projects that could in fact improve cardiometabolic outcomes for people living with diabetes.”

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID is typically characterized by anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations, with younger patients showing greatest improvements at 1 year, according to a nationwide cohort study conducted in Israel.

These findings help define long COVID, guiding providers and patients through the recovery process, Barak Mizrahi, MSc, of KI Research Institute, Kfar Malal, Israel, and colleagues reported.

“To provide efficient continuous treatment and prevent adverse events related to potential long term effects and delayed symptoms of COVID-19, determining the magnitude and severity of this phenomenon and distinguishing it from similar clinical manifestations that occur normally or following infections with other pathogens is essential,” the investigators wrote in The BMJ.

To this end, they conducted a retrospective, nationwide cohort study involving 1,913,234 people who took a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2021. They compared a range of long-term outcomes at different intervals post infection, and compared these trends across subgroups sorted by age, sex, and variant. Outcomes ranged broadly, including respiratory disorders, cough, arthralgia, weakness, hair loss, and others.

The investigators compared hazard ratios for each of these outcomes among patients who tested positive versus those who tested negative at three intervals after testing: 30-90 days, 30-180 days, and 180-360 days. Statistically significant differences in the risks of these outcomes between infected versus uninfected groups suggested that COVID was playing a role.

“The health outcomes that represent long COVID showed a significant increase in both early and late phases,” the investigators wrote. These outcomes included anosmia and dysgeusia, cognitive impairment, dyspnea, weakness, and palpitations. In contrast, chest pain, myalgia, arthralgia, cough, and dizziness were associated with patients who were in the early phase, but not the late phase of long COVID.

“Vaccinated patients with a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection had a lower risk for dyspnea and similar risk for other outcomes compared with unvaccinated infected patients,” the investigators noted.

For the long COVID outcomes, plots of risk differences over time showed that symptoms tended to get milder or resolve within a few months to a year. Patients 41-60 years were most likely to be impacted by long COVID outcomes, and show least improvement at 1 year, compared with other age groups.

“We believe that these findings will shed light on what is ‘long COVID’, support patients and doctors, and facilitate better and more efficient care,” Mr. Mizrahi and coauthor Maytal Bivas-Benita, PhD said in a joint written comment. “Primary care physicians (and patients) will now more clearly understand what are the symptoms that might be related to COVID and for how long they might linger. This would help physicians monitor the patients efficiently, ease their patients’ concerns and navigate a more efficient disease management.”

They suggested that the findings should hold consistent for future variants, although they could not “rule out the possibility of the emergence of new and more severe variants which will be more virulent and cause a more severe illness.”

One “major limitation” of the study, according to Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a physiatrist and professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, is the lack of data for fatigue and dysautonomia, which are “the major presentations” that she sees in her long COVID clinic.

“The authors of the article focus on the primary damage being related to the lungs, though we know this is a systemic disease beyond the respiratory system, with endothelial dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez, who is also director of COVID recovery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, said in an interview.

Although it was reassuring to see that younger adults with long COVID trended toward improvement, she noted that patients 41-60 years “still had pretty significant symptoms” after 12 months.

“That [age group comprises] probably the majority of my patients that I’m seeing in the long COVID clinic,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “If you look at the whole thing, it looks better, but then when you drill down to that age group where you’re seeing patients, then it’s not.”

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez is so busy managing patients with long COVID that new appointments in her clinic are now delayed until May 31, so most patients will remain under the care of their primary care providers. She recommended that these physicians follow guidance from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, who offer consensus statements based on clinical characteristics, with separate recommendations for pediatric patients.

Our understanding of long COVID will continue to improve, and with it, available recommendations, she predicted, but further advances will require persistent effort.

“I think no matter what this [study] shows us, more research is needed,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez said. “We can’t just forget about it, just because there is a population of people who get better. What about the ones who don’t?”

The investigators and Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The 2022 guideline update released by the KDIGO organization for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) highlighted the safety and expanded, evidence-based role for agents from three drug classes: the SGLT2 inhibitors, the GLP-1 receptor agonists, and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

But this key take-away from the guideline also underscored the challenges for ensuring fair and affordable access among US patients to these practice-changing medications.

The impact of widespread adoption of these three drug classes into routine US management of people with diabetes and CKD “will be determined by how effective the health care system and its patients and clinicians are at overcoming individual and structural barriers,” write Milda Saunders, MD, and Neda Laiteerapong, MD, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of a synopsis of the 2022 guideline update in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The synopsis is an 11-page distillation of the full 128-page guideline released by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization in 2022.

The recommendations in the 2022 guideline update “are exciting for their potential to change the natural history of CKD and diabetes, but their effect could be highly limited by barriers at multiple levels,” write Dr. Saunders and Dr. Laiteerapong, two internal medicine physicians at the University of Chicago.

“Without equitable implementation of the KDIGO 2022 guidelines there is a potential that clinical practice variation will increase and widen health inequities for minoritized people with CKD and diabetes,” they warn.
 

Generics to the rescue

One potentially effective, and likely imminent, way to level the prescribing field for patients with CKD and diabetes is for agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist classes to become available in generic formulations.

That should lower prices and thereby boost wider access and will likely occur fairly soon for at least two of the three drug classes, Dr. Laiteerapong predicts.

Some GLP-1 receptor agonists have already escaped patent exclusivity or will do so in 2023, she notes, including the anticipated ability of one drugmaker to start U.S. marketing of generic liraglutide by the end of 2023.

However, whether that manufacturer, Teva, proceeds with generic liraglutide “is a big question,” Dr. Laiteerapong said in an interview. She cited Teva’s history of failing to introduce a generic formulation of exenatide onto the U.S. market even though it has had a green light to do so since 2017.

The only nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist now on the market is finerenone (Kerendia), which will not go off patent for several more years, but for some branded SGLT2 inhibitors, U.S. patents will expire in 2025. In addition, remogliflozin is an SGLT2 inhibitor that “may have already lost patent exclusivity,” noted Dr. Laiteerapong, although it has also never received U.S. marketing approval.

Dr. Laiteerapong expressed optimism that the overall trajectory of access is on the rise. “Many people have type 2 diabetes, and these drugs are in demand,” she noted. She also pointed to progress recently made on insulin affordability. “Things will get better as long as people advocate and argue for equity,” she maintained.
 

Incentivize formulary listings

Dr. Laiteerapong cited other approaches that could boost access to these medications, such as “creating incentives for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that [these drugs] are on formularies” of large, government-affiliated U.S. health insurance programs, such as Medicare Advantage plans, Medicare Part D, state Medicaid plans, and coverage through U.S. Veterans Affairs and the Tricare health insurance plans available to active members of the US military.

The editorial she coauthored with Dr. Saunders also calls for future collaborations among various medical societies to create “a more unified and streamlined set of recommendations” that benefits patients with diabetes, CKD, and multiple other chronic conditions.

“Over the last decade, we have seen more societies willing to present cooperative guidelines, as well as a surge in research on patients who live with multiple chronic conditions. There is momentum that will allow these different societies to work together,” Dr. Laiteerapong said.

Dr. Laiteerapong and Dr. Saunders have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 virus can be found throughout the entire body and remain present for more than 7 months, researchers discovered.

A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.

Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes. 

The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”

The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.

The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.

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

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.