User login
SGLT2 inhibitors: Real-world data show benefits outweigh risks
Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.
The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.
“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”
In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.
And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.
“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’
“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”
The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”
The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
Slow uptake, safety concerns
SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.
However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.
This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.
However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.
To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.
Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.
The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.
Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.
Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,
Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.
Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.
Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.
Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.
The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.
“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”
In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.
And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.
“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’
“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”
The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”
The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
Slow uptake, safety concerns
SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.
However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.
This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.
However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.
To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.
Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.
The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.
Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.
Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,
Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.
Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.
Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.
Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.
The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.
“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”
In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.
And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.
“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’
“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”
The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.
“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”
The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
Slow uptake, safety concerns
SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.
However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.
This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.
However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.
To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.
Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.
The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.
Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.
Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,
Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.
Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.
Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.
Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New coalition aims to revolutionize stalled lupus research
Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.
“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.
The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.
As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.
But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.
Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.
According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.
“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.
The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”
The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.
The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”
The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.
One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”
According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.
Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.
Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.
“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.
The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.
As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.
But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.
Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.
According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.
“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.
The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”
The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.
The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”
The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.
One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”
According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.
Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.
Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.
“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.
The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.
As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.
But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.
Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.
According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.
“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.
The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”
The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.
The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”
The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.
One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”
According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.
Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.
Biosimilars and patients: Discussions should address safety, cost, and anxiety about change
Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.
“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.
The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”
He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”
The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.
Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
Insurance often drives the conversation
The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.
Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.
Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.
Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”
However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.
This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.
But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.
Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”
Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
Conversations about cost
Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.
If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.
Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”
Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.
“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.
Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”
For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.
Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients
Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.
Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.
Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 
As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.
When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.
Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.
In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
A village approach to education
When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.
The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar.
This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”
Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”
Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.
No consensus on interchangeability
Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.
If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.
The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.
In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).
“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.
Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”
Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.
“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
Resources for physicians, patients
The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.
The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.
Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.
“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.
Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.
“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.
The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”
He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”
The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.
Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
Insurance often drives the conversation
The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.
Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.
Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.
Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”
However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.
This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.
But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.
Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”
Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
Conversations about cost
Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.
If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.
Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”
Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.
“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.
Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”
For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.
Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients
Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.
Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.
Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar.
As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.
When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.
Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.
In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
A village approach to education
When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.
The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar.
This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”
Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”
Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.
No consensus on interchangeability
Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.
If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.
The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.
In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).
“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.
Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”
Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.
“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
Resources for physicians, patients
The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.
The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.
Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.
“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.
Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.
“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.
The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”
He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”
The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.
It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.
Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
Insurance often drives the conversation
The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.
Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.
Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.
Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”
However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.
This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.
But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.
Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”
Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
Conversations about cost
Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.
If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.
Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”
Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.
“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.
Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”
For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.
Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients
Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.
Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.
Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar.
As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.
When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.
Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.
In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
A village approach to education
When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.
The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar.
This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”
Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”
Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.
No consensus on interchangeability
Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.
If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.
The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.
In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).
“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.
Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”
Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.
“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
Resources for physicians, patients
The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.
The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.
Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.
“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.
Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.
Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sweaty treatment for social anxiety could pass the sniff test
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?
Dupilumab moves forward as possible COPD treatment
of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.
Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.
In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.
Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).
In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).
Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.
The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.
The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.
The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).
Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).
Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.
The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.
Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.
In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.
Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).
In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).
Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.
The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.
The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.
The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).
Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).
Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.
The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.
Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.
In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.
Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).
In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).
Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.
The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.
The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.
The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).
Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).
Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.
The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
Luxe vacations, private jets: Medical device maker, surgeon to pay $46 million penalty in kickback scheme
according to experts familiar with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
Historically, enforcement actions have primarily focused on the person or organization offering the perks – and not necessarily the physicians accepting it, Steven W. Ortquist, founder and principal of Arete Compliance Solutions, LLC, in Phoenix, told this news organization.
But that’s changing.
“In recent years, we are seeing a trend toward holding physicians and others on the receiving end of the inducement accountable as well,” said Mr. Ortquist, who is a past board member and president of the Health Care Compliance Association. He noted that authorities usually pursue the inducing company first before moving on to individual clinicians or practices.
The Department of Justice followed a similar pattern in a recently announced kickback settlement that ensnared an intraocular lens distributor, an ophthalmology equipment supplier, two CEOs, and a surgeon. Precision Lens must pay more than $43 million for offering high-end vacations and other expensive perks to surgeons who used its cataract products.
The verdict marks the end of a 6-week civil jury trial, where evidence emerged that Paul Ehlen, owner of Precision Lens and its parent company, Cameron-Ehlen Group, maintained a secret “slush fund” for paying kickbacks to ophthalmic surgeons. The inducement scheme netted the Minnesota-based company millions in sales and led to the submission of 64,575 false Medicare claims from 2006 to 2015, a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.
According to court documents, physicians received luxury travel and entertainment packages, including skiing, fishing, and golfing excursions at exclusive destinations, often traveling via private jet to attend Broadway musicals and major sporting events. Mr. Ehlen and company representatives also sold frequent flyer miles to physicians at a steep discount, allowing them to take personal and business trips below fair market value.
Federal authorities initially announced an investigation into the business practices of Precision Lens in 2017 after receiving a whistleblower complaint from Kipp Fesenmaier, a former executive at Sightpath Medical, an ophthalmology supplier and “corporate partner” of Precision Lens. Mr. Fesenmaier alleged that both companies were involved in an inducement scheme.
Sightpath Medical and its CEO, James Tiffany, agreed to a $12 million settlement to resolve the kickback allegations.
The Department of Justice subsequently investigated Jitendra Swarup, MD, an ophthalmologist and cataract surgeon who allegedly received “unlawful remuneration from Sightpath, Precision, and Ehlen” and filed false insurance claims. In addition to accepting expensive hunting and fishing trips from the medical device companies, Dr. Swarup was paid more than $100,000 per year for consulting services he did not fully render.
Dr. Swarup agreed to a nearly $3 million settlement and participation in a 3-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General. In exchange for compliance with such contracts, the OIG permits physicians to continue participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.
In a statement from attorneys, Precision Lens and Mr. Ehlen pledged to appeal the verdict and “defend ... our wholly appropriate actions” while remaining focused on their commitment to health care clinicians and manufacturers.
‘Endless’ opportunities for inducement
Unfortunately, opportunities for inducement are “endless,” experts say. Extravagant trips, dinners, and gifts can trigger a violation, but so can nearly anything of value.
Just last year, Biotronik reached a $12.95 million settlement amid allegations that company representatives wined and dined physicians to induce their use of its pacemakers and defibrillators. To date, no physicians have been charged.
But after a record-breaking number of whistleblower judgments last fiscal year totaling more than $2 billion, physicians should take note, Radha Bhatnagar, Esq, director of compliance at The CM Group, told the news organization.
“When manufacturers offer physicians kickbacks with the added element of fraudulent Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, that is typically when manufacturers and individuals face civil and criminal liability,” said Ms. Bhatnagar, something the Department of Justice alluded to when announcing a settlement involving 15 Texas physicians last year.
In another case, Kingsley R. Chin, an orthopedic surgeon and designer of a spinal implant, was indicted in 2021 for paying millions of dollars in sham consulting fees to physicians who used his products. At least six surgeons who accepted money from Dr. Chin were later named in a civil case and ordered to pay $3.3 million in penalties.
Jason Montone, DO, an orthopedic surgeon who accepted the illicit payments, agreed to a plea deal with a reduced prison sentence, 1 year of supervised release, and a fine of $379,000.
Although Dr. Chin’s sentencing hasn’t been announced, violating kickback laws can result in a sentence of up to 10 years.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to experts familiar with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
Historically, enforcement actions have primarily focused on the person or organization offering the perks – and not necessarily the physicians accepting it, Steven W. Ortquist, founder and principal of Arete Compliance Solutions, LLC, in Phoenix, told this news organization.
But that’s changing.
“In recent years, we are seeing a trend toward holding physicians and others on the receiving end of the inducement accountable as well,” said Mr. Ortquist, who is a past board member and president of the Health Care Compliance Association. He noted that authorities usually pursue the inducing company first before moving on to individual clinicians or practices.
The Department of Justice followed a similar pattern in a recently announced kickback settlement that ensnared an intraocular lens distributor, an ophthalmology equipment supplier, two CEOs, and a surgeon. Precision Lens must pay more than $43 million for offering high-end vacations and other expensive perks to surgeons who used its cataract products.
The verdict marks the end of a 6-week civil jury trial, where evidence emerged that Paul Ehlen, owner of Precision Lens and its parent company, Cameron-Ehlen Group, maintained a secret “slush fund” for paying kickbacks to ophthalmic surgeons. The inducement scheme netted the Minnesota-based company millions in sales and led to the submission of 64,575 false Medicare claims from 2006 to 2015, a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.
According to court documents, physicians received luxury travel and entertainment packages, including skiing, fishing, and golfing excursions at exclusive destinations, often traveling via private jet to attend Broadway musicals and major sporting events. Mr. Ehlen and company representatives also sold frequent flyer miles to physicians at a steep discount, allowing them to take personal and business trips below fair market value.
Federal authorities initially announced an investigation into the business practices of Precision Lens in 2017 after receiving a whistleblower complaint from Kipp Fesenmaier, a former executive at Sightpath Medical, an ophthalmology supplier and “corporate partner” of Precision Lens. Mr. Fesenmaier alleged that both companies were involved in an inducement scheme.
Sightpath Medical and its CEO, James Tiffany, agreed to a $12 million settlement to resolve the kickback allegations.
The Department of Justice subsequently investigated Jitendra Swarup, MD, an ophthalmologist and cataract surgeon who allegedly received “unlawful remuneration from Sightpath, Precision, and Ehlen” and filed false insurance claims. In addition to accepting expensive hunting and fishing trips from the medical device companies, Dr. Swarup was paid more than $100,000 per year for consulting services he did not fully render.
Dr. Swarup agreed to a nearly $3 million settlement and participation in a 3-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General. In exchange for compliance with such contracts, the OIG permits physicians to continue participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.
In a statement from attorneys, Precision Lens and Mr. Ehlen pledged to appeal the verdict and “defend ... our wholly appropriate actions” while remaining focused on their commitment to health care clinicians and manufacturers.
‘Endless’ opportunities for inducement
Unfortunately, opportunities for inducement are “endless,” experts say. Extravagant trips, dinners, and gifts can trigger a violation, but so can nearly anything of value.
Just last year, Biotronik reached a $12.95 million settlement amid allegations that company representatives wined and dined physicians to induce their use of its pacemakers and defibrillators. To date, no physicians have been charged.
But after a record-breaking number of whistleblower judgments last fiscal year totaling more than $2 billion, physicians should take note, Radha Bhatnagar, Esq, director of compliance at The CM Group, told the news organization.
“When manufacturers offer physicians kickbacks with the added element of fraudulent Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, that is typically when manufacturers and individuals face civil and criminal liability,” said Ms. Bhatnagar, something the Department of Justice alluded to when announcing a settlement involving 15 Texas physicians last year.
In another case, Kingsley R. Chin, an orthopedic surgeon and designer of a spinal implant, was indicted in 2021 for paying millions of dollars in sham consulting fees to physicians who used his products. At least six surgeons who accepted money from Dr. Chin were later named in a civil case and ordered to pay $3.3 million in penalties.
Jason Montone, DO, an orthopedic surgeon who accepted the illicit payments, agreed to a plea deal with a reduced prison sentence, 1 year of supervised release, and a fine of $379,000.
Although Dr. Chin’s sentencing hasn’t been announced, violating kickback laws can result in a sentence of up to 10 years.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to experts familiar with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
Historically, enforcement actions have primarily focused on the person or organization offering the perks – and not necessarily the physicians accepting it, Steven W. Ortquist, founder and principal of Arete Compliance Solutions, LLC, in Phoenix, told this news organization.
But that’s changing.
“In recent years, we are seeing a trend toward holding physicians and others on the receiving end of the inducement accountable as well,” said Mr. Ortquist, who is a past board member and president of the Health Care Compliance Association. He noted that authorities usually pursue the inducing company first before moving on to individual clinicians or practices.
The Department of Justice followed a similar pattern in a recently announced kickback settlement that ensnared an intraocular lens distributor, an ophthalmology equipment supplier, two CEOs, and a surgeon. Precision Lens must pay more than $43 million for offering high-end vacations and other expensive perks to surgeons who used its cataract products.
The verdict marks the end of a 6-week civil jury trial, where evidence emerged that Paul Ehlen, owner of Precision Lens and its parent company, Cameron-Ehlen Group, maintained a secret “slush fund” for paying kickbacks to ophthalmic surgeons. The inducement scheme netted the Minnesota-based company millions in sales and led to the submission of 64,575 false Medicare claims from 2006 to 2015, a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.
According to court documents, physicians received luxury travel and entertainment packages, including skiing, fishing, and golfing excursions at exclusive destinations, often traveling via private jet to attend Broadway musicals and major sporting events. Mr. Ehlen and company representatives also sold frequent flyer miles to physicians at a steep discount, allowing them to take personal and business trips below fair market value.
Federal authorities initially announced an investigation into the business practices of Precision Lens in 2017 after receiving a whistleblower complaint from Kipp Fesenmaier, a former executive at Sightpath Medical, an ophthalmology supplier and “corporate partner” of Precision Lens. Mr. Fesenmaier alleged that both companies were involved in an inducement scheme.
Sightpath Medical and its CEO, James Tiffany, agreed to a $12 million settlement to resolve the kickback allegations.
The Department of Justice subsequently investigated Jitendra Swarup, MD, an ophthalmologist and cataract surgeon who allegedly received “unlawful remuneration from Sightpath, Precision, and Ehlen” and filed false insurance claims. In addition to accepting expensive hunting and fishing trips from the medical device companies, Dr. Swarup was paid more than $100,000 per year for consulting services he did not fully render.
Dr. Swarup agreed to a nearly $3 million settlement and participation in a 3-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General. In exchange for compliance with such contracts, the OIG permits physicians to continue participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.
In a statement from attorneys, Precision Lens and Mr. Ehlen pledged to appeal the verdict and “defend ... our wholly appropriate actions” while remaining focused on their commitment to health care clinicians and manufacturers.
‘Endless’ opportunities for inducement
Unfortunately, opportunities for inducement are “endless,” experts say. Extravagant trips, dinners, and gifts can trigger a violation, but so can nearly anything of value.
Just last year, Biotronik reached a $12.95 million settlement amid allegations that company representatives wined and dined physicians to induce their use of its pacemakers and defibrillators. To date, no physicians have been charged.
But after a record-breaking number of whistleblower judgments last fiscal year totaling more than $2 billion, physicians should take note, Radha Bhatnagar, Esq, director of compliance at The CM Group, told the news organization.
“When manufacturers offer physicians kickbacks with the added element of fraudulent Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, that is typically when manufacturers and individuals face civil and criminal liability,” said Ms. Bhatnagar, something the Department of Justice alluded to when announcing a settlement involving 15 Texas physicians last year.
In another case, Kingsley R. Chin, an orthopedic surgeon and designer of a spinal implant, was indicted in 2021 for paying millions of dollars in sham consulting fees to physicians who used his products. At least six surgeons who accepted money from Dr. Chin were later named in a civil case and ordered to pay $3.3 million in penalties.
Jason Montone, DO, an orthopedic surgeon who accepted the illicit payments, agreed to a plea deal with a reduced prison sentence, 1 year of supervised release, and a fine of $379,000.
Although Dr. Chin’s sentencing hasn’t been announced, violating kickback laws can result in a sentence of up to 10 years.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Does new heart transplant method challenge definition of death?
The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.
However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant. 
Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
A new pathway for heart transplantation
The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.
As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.
However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.
In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death.
Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed.
The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.
For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.
Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.
In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.
It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.
Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.
Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
The direct procurement approach
The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.
The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.
Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”
Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)
The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).
Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.
“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”
Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.”
The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.
He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts.
DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.
The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
Ethical concerns about NRP
Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.
When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).
Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.
There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.
“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.
“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”
The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.
“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.
With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”
The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
The argument for NRP
Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.
“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.
“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”
Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.
“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”
On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”
He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.”
On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”
But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”
Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD? We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.
“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”
Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?
Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”
He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”
But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.
“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.
“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.
“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
Cautious nod
In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.
The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”
The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”
However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.
“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.
“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”
Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
Variations in practice around the world
This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.
In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t.
David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.
“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.
Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.
“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.
Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.
“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”
Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants.
“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”
He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”
Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.
“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said.
“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”
But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.
“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.
“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”
Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”
A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.
In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.
Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.
However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.
But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”
The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.
If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
Definition of death
The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.
DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”
Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.
“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function.
“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”
Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier.
In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.
“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.”
Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
Collaborative decision
Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.
Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”
Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”
He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.”
Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”
He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.
“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”
These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.
Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”
If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”
Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”
He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.
Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.
However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.
Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
A new pathway for heart transplantation
The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.
As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.
However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.
In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death.
Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed.
The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.
For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.
Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.
In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.
It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.
Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.
Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
The direct procurement approach
The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.
The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.
Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”
Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)
The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).
Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.
“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”
Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.”
The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.
He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts.
DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.
The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
Ethical concerns about NRP
Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.
When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).
Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.
There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.
“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.
“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”
The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.
“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.
With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”
The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
The argument for NRP
Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.
“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.
“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”
Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.
“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”
On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”
He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.”
On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”
But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”
Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD? We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.
“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”
Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?
Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”
He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”
But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.
“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.
“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.
“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
Cautious nod
In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.
The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”
The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”
However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.
“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.
“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”
Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
Variations in practice around the world
This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.
In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t.
David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.
“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.
Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.
“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.
Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.
“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”
Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants.
“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”
He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”
Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.
“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said.
“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”
But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.
“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.
“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”
Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”
A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.
In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.
Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.
However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.
But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”
The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.
If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
Definition of death
The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.
DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”
Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.
“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function.
“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”
Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier.
In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.
“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.”
Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
Collaborative decision
Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.
Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”
Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”
He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.”
Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”
He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.
“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”
These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.
Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”
If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”
Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”
He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.
Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.
However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.
Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
A new pathway for heart transplantation
The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.
As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.
However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.
In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death.
Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed.
The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.
For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.
Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.
In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.
It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.
Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.
Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
The direct procurement approach
The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.
The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.
Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”
Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)
The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).
Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.
“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”
Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.”
The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.
He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts.
DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.
The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
Ethical concerns about NRP
Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.
When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).
Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.
There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.
“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.
“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”
The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.
“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.
With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”
The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
The argument for NRP
Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.
“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.
“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”
Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.
“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”
On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”
He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.”
On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”
But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”
Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD? We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.
“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”
Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?
Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”
He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”
But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.
“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.
“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.
“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
Cautious nod
In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.
The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”
The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”
However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.
“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.
“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”
Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
Variations in practice around the world
This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.
In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t.
David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.
“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.
Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.
“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.
Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.
“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”
Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants.
“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”
He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”
Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.
“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said.
“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”
But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.
“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.
“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”
Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”
A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.
In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.
Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.
However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.
But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”
The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.
If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
Definition of death
The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.
DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”
Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.
“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function.
“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”
Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier.
In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.
“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.”
Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
Collaborative decision
Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.
Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”
Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”
He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.”
Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”
He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.
“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”
These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.
Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”
If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”
Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”
He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.
Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dabigatran recalled over potential carcinogen
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.
To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.
Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.
The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.
Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).
Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Nurse makes millions selling her licensing exam study sheets
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ms. Beggs, 28, sells one-page study sheets or bundles of sheets, sometimes with colorful drawings, conversation bubbles and underlining, that boil down concepts for particular conditions into easy-to-understand language.
The biggest seller on Ms. Beggs’ online marketplace Etsy site, RNExplained, is a bundle of study guides covering eight core nursing classes. The notes range in price from $2 to $150. More than 70,000 customers have bought the $60 bundle, according to the website.
Ms. Beggs’ business developed in a “very unintentional” way when COVID hit with just months left in her nursing program at Mount Saint Mary’s University, Los Angeles, she told this news organization.
Classes had switched to Zoom, and she had no one to study with as she prepared to take her board exams.
“The best way I know how to study is to teach things out loud. But because I had nobody to teach out loud to, I would literally teach them to the wall,” Ms. Beggs said. “I would record myself so I could play it back and teach myself these topics that were hard for me to understand.”
Just for fun, she says, she posted them on TikTok and the responses started flowing in, with followers asking where she was selling the sheets. She now has more than 660,000 TikTok followers and 9 million likes.
Ms. Beggs said that every sheet highlights a condition, and she has made 308 of them.
Traditional classroom lessons typically teach one medical condition in 5-6 pages, Ms. Beggs said. “I go straight to the point.”
One reviewer on Ms. Beggs’ Etsy site appreciated the handwritten notes, calling them “simplified and concise.” Another commented: “Definitely helped me pass my last exam.”
Ms. Beggs says that her notes may seem simple, but each page represents comprehensive research.
“I have to go through not just one source of information to make sure my information is factual,” Ms. Beggs says. “What you teach in California might be a little different than what you teach in Florida. It’s very meticulous. The lab values will be a little different everywhere you go.”
She acknowledges her competition, noting that there are many other study guides for the NCLEX and nursing courses.
Nursing groups weigh in
Dawn Kappel, spokesperson for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, which oversees NCLEX, said in an interview that “NCSBN has no issue with the current content of Stephanee Beggs’ business venture.”
For many students, the study guides will be helpful, especially for visual learners, said Carole Kenner, PhD, RN, dean and professor in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at The College of New Jersey.
But for students “who are less confident in their knowledge, I would want to see a lot more in-depth explanation and rationale,” Dr. Kenner said.
“Since the NCLEX is moving to more cased-based scenarios, the next-gen unfolding cases, you really have to understand a lot of the rationale.”
The notes remind Dr. Kenner of traditional flash cards. “I don’t think it will work for all students, but even the fanciest of onsite review courses are useful to everyone,” she said.
‘Not cutting corners’
As an emergency nurse, Ms. Beggs said, “I have the experience as a nurse to show people that what you are learning will be seen in real life.”
“The way I teach my brand is not to take shortcuts. I love to teach to understand rather than teaching to memorize for an exam.”
She said she sees her guides as a supplement to learning, not a replacement.
“It’s not cutting corners,” she says. “I condense a medical condition that could take a very long time to understand and break it into layman’s terms.”
Ms. Beggs said when people hear about the $2 million, they often ask her whether she plans to give up her shifts in the emergency department for the more lucrative venture.
The answer is no, at least not yet.
“Aside from teaching, I genuinely love being at the bedside,” Ms. Beggs said. “I don’t foresee myself leaving that for good for as long as I can handle both.” She acknowledged, though, that her business now takes up most of her time.
“I love everything about both aspects, so it’s hard for me to choose.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The air up there: Oxygen could be a bit overrated
Into thin, but healthy, air
Human civilization has essentially been built on proximity to water. Ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India were all intimately connected to either rivers or the ocean. Even today, with all our technology, about a third of Earth’s 8 billion people live within 100 vertical meters of sea level, and the median person lives at an elevation of just 200 meters.
All things considered, one might imagine life is pretty tough for the 2 million people living at an elevation of 4,500 meters (nearly 15,000 feet). Not too many Wal-Marts or McDonalds up there. Oh, and not much air either. And for most of us not named Spongebob, air is good.
Or is it? That’s the question posed by a new study. After all, the researchers said, people living at high altitudes, where the air has only 11% effective oxygen instead of the 21% we have at low altitude, have significantly lower rates of metabolic disorders such as diabetes and heart diseases. Maybe breathing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
To find out, the researchers placed a group of mice in environments with either 11% oxygen or 8% oxygen. This netted them a bunch of very tired mice. Hey, sudden altitude gain doesn’t go too well for us either, but after 3 weeks, all the mice in the hypoxic environments had regained their normal movement and were behaving as any mouse would.
While the critters seemed normal on the outside, a closer examination found the truth. Their metabolism had been permanently altered, and their blood sugar and weight went down and never bounced back up. Further examination through PET scans showed that the hypoxic mice’s organs showed an increase in glucose metabolism and that brown fat and skeletal muscles reduced the amount of sugar they used.
This goes against the prevailing assumption about hypoxic conditions, the researchers said, since it was previously theorized that the body simply burned more glucose in response to having less oxygen. And while that’s true, our organs also conspicuously use less glucose. Currently, many athletes use hypoxic environments to train, but these new data suggest that people with metabolic disorders also would see benefits from living in low-oxygen environments.
Do you know what this means? All we have to do to stop diabetes is take civilization and push it somewhere else. This can’t possibly end badly.
Sleep survey: The restless majority
Newsflash! This just in: Nobody is sleeping well.
When we go to bed, our goal is to get rest, right? Sorry America, but you’re falling short. In a recent survey conducted by OnePoll for Purple Mattress, almost two-thirds of the 2,011 participants considered themselves restless sleepers.
Not surprised. So what’s keeping us up?
Snoring partners (20%) and anxiety (26%) made the list, but the award for top complaint goes to body pain. Back pain was most prevalent, reported by 36% of respondents, followed by neck pain (33%) and shoulder pain (24%). No wonder, then, that only 10% of the group reported feeling well rested when they woke up.
Do you ever blame your tiredness on sleeping funny? Well, we all kind of sleep funny, and yet we’re still not sleeping well.
The largest proportion of people like to sleep on their side (48%), compared with 18% on their back and 17% on their stomach. The main reasons to choose certain positions were to ease soreness or sleep better, both at 28%. The largest share of participants (47%) reported sleeping in a “yearner” position, while 40% lay on their stomachs in the “free faller” position, and 39% reported using the “soldier” position.
Regardless of the method people use to get to sleep or the position they’re in, the goal is always the same. We’re all just trying to figure out what’s the right one for us.
Seen a UFO recently? Don’t blame COVID
First of all, because we know you’re going to be thinking it in a minute, no, we did not make this up. With COVID-19 still hanging around, there’s no need for fabrication on our part.
The pandemic, clearly, has caused humans to do some strange things over the last 3 years, but what about some of the more, shall we say … eccentric behavior that people were already exhibiting before COVID found its way into our lives?
If, like R. Chase Cockrell, PhD, of the University of Vermont and associates at the Center for UFO Studies, you were wondering if the pandemic affected UFO reporting, then wonder no more. After all, with all that extra time being spent outdoors back in 2020 and all the additional anxiety, surely somebody must have seen something.
The investigators started with the basics by analyzing data from the National UFO Reporting Center and the Mutual UFO Network. Sightings did increase by about 600 in each database during 2020, compared with 2018 and 2019, but not because of the pandemic.
That’s right, we can’t pin this one on our good friend SARS-CoV-2. Further analysis showed that the launches of SpaceX Starlink satellites – sometimes as many as 60 at a time – probably caused the increase in UFO sightings, which means that our favorite billionaire, Elon Musk, is to blame. Yup, the genial Mr. Muskellunge did something that even a global pandemic couldn’t, and yet we vaccinate for COVID.
Next week on tenuous connections: A new study links the 2020 presidential election to increased emergency department visits for external hemorrhoids.
See? That’s fabrication. We made that up.
This article was updated 5/15/23.
Into thin, but healthy, air
Human civilization has essentially been built on proximity to water. Ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India were all intimately connected to either rivers or the ocean. Even today, with all our technology, about a third of Earth’s 8 billion people live within 100 vertical meters of sea level, and the median person lives at an elevation of just 200 meters.
All things considered, one might imagine life is pretty tough for the 2 million people living at an elevation of 4,500 meters (nearly 15,000 feet). Not too many Wal-Marts or McDonalds up there. Oh, and not much air either. And for most of us not named Spongebob, air is good.
Or is it? That’s the question posed by a new study. After all, the researchers said, people living at high altitudes, where the air has only 11% effective oxygen instead of the 21% we have at low altitude, have significantly lower rates of metabolic disorders such as diabetes and heart diseases. Maybe breathing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
To find out, the researchers placed a group of mice in environments with either 11% oxygen or 8% oxygen. This netted them a bunch of very tired mice. Hey, sudden altitude gain doesn’t go too well for us either, but after 3 weeks, all the mice in the hypoxic environments had regained their normal movement and were behaving as any mouse would.
While the critters seemed normal on the outside, a closer examination found the truth. Their metabolism had been permanently altered, and their blood sugar and weight went down and never bounced back up. Further examination through PET scans showed that the hypoxic mice’s organs showed an increase in glucose metabolism and that brown fat and skeletal muscles reduced the amount of sugar they used.
This goes against the prevailing assumption about hypoxic conditions, the researchers said, since it was previously theorized that the body simply burned more glucose in response to having less oxygen. And while that’s true, our organs also conspicuously use less glucose. Currently, many athletes use hypoxic environments to train, but these new data suggest that people with metabolic disorders also would see benefits from living in low-oxygen environments.
Do you know what this means? All we have to do to stop diabetes is take civilization and push it somewhere else. This can’t possibly end badly.
Sleep survey: The restless majority
Newsflash! This just in: Nobody is sleeping well.
When we go to bed, our goal is to get rest, right? Sorry America, but you’re falling short. In a recent survey conducted by OnePoll for Purple Mattress, almost two-thirds of the 2,011 participants considered themselves restless sleepers.
Not surprised. So what’s keeping us up?
Snoring partners (20%) and anxiety (26%) made the list, but the award for top complaint goes to body pain. Back pain was most prevalent, reported by 36% of respondents, followed by neck pain (33%) and shoulder pain (24%). No wonder, then, that only 10% of the group reported feeling well rested when they woke up.
Do you ever blame your tiredness on sleeping funny? Well, we all kind of sleep funny, and yet we’re still not sleeping well.
The largest proportion of people like to sleep on their side (48%), compared with 18% on their back and 17% on their stomach. The main reasons to choose certain positions were to ease soreness or sleep better, both at 28%. The largest share of participants (47%) reported sleeping in a “yearner” position, while 40% lay on their stomachs in the “free faller” position, and 39% reported using the “soldier” position.
Regardless of the method people use to get to sleep or the position they’re in, the goal is always the same. We’re all just trying to figure out what’s the right one for us.
Seen a UFO recently? Don’t blame COVID
First of all, because we know you’re going to be thinking it in a minute, no, we did not make this up. With COVID-19 still hanging around, there’s no need for fabrication on our part.
The pandemic, clearly, has caused humans to do some strange things over the last 3 years, but what about some of the more, shall we say … eccentric behavior that people were already exhibiting before COVID found its way into our lives?
If, like R. Chase Cockrell, PhD, of the University of Vermont and associates at the Center for UFO Studies, you were wondering if the pandemic affected UFO reporting, then wonder no more. After all, with all that extra time being spent outdoors back in 2020 and all the additional anxiety, surely somebody must have seen something.
The investigators started with the basics by analyzing data from the National UFO Reporting Center and the Mutual UFO Network. Sightings did increase by about 600 in each database during 2020, compared with 2018 and 2019, but not because of the pandemic.
That’s right, we can’t pin this one on our good friend SARS-CoV-2. Further analysis showed that the launches of SpaceX Starlink satellites – sometimes as many as 60 at a time – probably caused the increase in UFO sightings, which means that our favorite billionaire, Elon Musk, is to blame. Yup, the genial Mr. Muskellunge did something that even a global pandemic couldn’t, and yet we vaccinate for COVID.
Next week on tenuous connections: A new study links the 2020 presidential election to increased emergency department visits for external hemorrhoids.
See? That’s fabrication. We made that up.
This article was updated 5/15/23.
Into thin, but healthy, air
Human civilization has essentially been built on proximity to water. Ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India were all intimately connected to either rivers or the ocean. Even today, with all our technology, about a third of Earth’s 8 billion people live within 100 vertical meters of sea level, and the median person lives at an elevation of just 200 meters.
All things considered, one might imagine life is pretty tough for the 2 million people living at an elevation of 4,500 meters (nearly 15,000 feet). Not too many Wal-Marts or McDonalds up there. Oh, and not much air either. And for most of us not named Spongebob, air is good.
Or is it? That’s the question posed by a new study. After all, the researchers said, people living at high altitudes, where the air has only 11% effective oxygen instead of the 21% we have at low altitude, have significantly lower rates of metabolic disorders such as diabetes and heart diseases. Maybe breathing isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
To find out, the researchers placed a group of mice in environments with either 11% oxygen or 8% oxygen. This netted them a bunch of very tired mice. Hey, sudden altitude gain doesn’t go too well for us either, but after 3 weeks, all the mice in the hypoxic environments had regained their normal movement and were behaving as any mouse would.
While the critters seemed normal on the outside, a closer examination found the truth. Their metabolism had been permanently altered, and their blood sugar and weight went down and never bounced back up. Further examination through PET scans showed that the hypoxic mice’s organs showed an increase in glucose metabolism and that brown fat and skeletal muscles reduced the amount of sugar they used.
This goes against the prevailing assumption about hypoxic conditions, the researchers said, since it was previously theorized that the body simply burned more glucose in response to having less oxygen. And while that’s true, our organs also conspicuously use less glucose. Currently, many athletes use hypoxic environments to train, but these new data suggest that people with metabolic disorders also would see benefits from living in low-oxygen environments.
Do you know what this means? All we have to do to stop diabetes is take civilization and push it somewhere else. This can’t possibly end badly.
Sleep survey: The restless majority
Newsflash! This just in: Nobody is sleeping well.
When we go to bed, our goal is to get rest, right? Sorry America, but you’re falling short. In a recent survey conducted by OnePoll for Purple Mattress, almost two-thirds of the 2,011 participants considered themselves restless sleepers.
Not surprised. So what’s keeping us up?
Snoring partners (20%) and anxiety (26%) made the list, but the award for top complaint goes to body pain. Back pain was most prevalent, reported by 36% of respondents, followed by neck pain (33%) and shoulder pain (24%). No wonder, then, that only 10% of the group reported feeling well rested when they woke up.
Do you ever blame your tiredness on sleeping funny? Well, we all kind of sleep funny, and yet we’re still not sleeping well.
The largest proportion of people like to sleep on their side (48%), compared with 18% on their back and 17% on their stomach. The main reasons to choose certain positions were to ease soreness or sleep better, both at 28%. The largest share of participants (47%) reported sleeping in a “yearner” position, while 40% lay on their stomachs in the “free faller” position, and 39% reported using the “soldier” position.
Regardless of the method people use to get to sleep or the position they’re in, the goal is always the same. We’re all just trying to figure out what’s the right one for us.
Seen a UFO recently? Don’t blame COVID
First of all, because we know you’re going to be thinking it in a minute, no, we did not make this up. With COVID-19 still hanging around, there’s no need for fabrication on our part.
The pandemic, clearly, has caused humans to do some strange things over the last 3 years, but what about some of the more, shall we say … eccentric behavior that people were already exhibiting before COVID found its way into our lives?
If, like R. Chase Cockrell, PhD, of the University of Vermont and associates at the Center for UFO Studies, you were wondering if the pandemic affected UFO reporting, then wonder no more. After all, with all that extra time being spent outdoors back in 2020 and all the additional anxiety, surely somebody must have seen something.
The investigators started with the basics by analyzing data from the National UFO Reporting Center and the Mutual UFO Network. Sightings did increase by about 600 in each database during 2020, compared with 2018 and 2019, but not because of the pandemic.
That’s right, we can’t pin this one on our good friend SARS-CoV-2. Further analysis showed that the launches of SpaceX Starlink satellites – sometimes as many as 60 at a time – probably caused the increase in UFO sightings, which means that our favorite billionaire, Elon Musk, is to blame. Yup, the genial Mr. Muskellunge did something that even a global pandemic couldn’t, and yet we vaccinate for COVID.
Next week on tenuous connections: A new study links the 2020 presidential election to increased emergency department visits for external hemorrhoids.
See? That’s fabrication. We made that up.
This article was updated 5/15/23.