Heidi Splete

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each additional 10 minutes of boarding in the emergency department was associated with a 0.8-minute increase in door-to-provider time, on the basis of data from nearly 900 facilities presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study was important to conduct at this time because ED boarding is significantly limiting ED physicians to provide optimal care, said Camila Tyminski, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., who presented the findings at the meeting.

“Boarding had steadily been rising prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased ED use. As our data show, boarding had a detrimental impact on ED throughput measures, including increased door to provider time, increased length of stay of the patient discharged from the ED, and increased rate of patients that left before completion of treatment,” she said.

“It was important to understand these trends prior to 2019-2020 because the COVID-19 pandemic and national nursing shortage have drastically worsened boarding. This study provided a framework for future studies on boarding across ED’s nationally since the start of the pandemic,” she added.

“Post-pandemic, we have hit a crisis point,” lead author Anthony Napoli, MD, also of Brown University, said in an interview. “Boarding is largely a hospital capacity problem, but one key fix germane to EM [emergency medicine] is the provider in triage model (PIT). While PIT has been shown to improve efficiency of ED care, a single institution study demonstrated that it was unable to mitigate the effects of boarding. The study of the association of boarding and efficiency of ED operations and intake needed to be shown on a national scale,” he said.

The researchers reviewed cross-sectional ED operational data from the ED Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA), a voluntary database that includes self-reports of operational metrics from approximately half of EDs in the United States.

The data set included 892 EDs; freestanding and pediatric EDs, as well as those with missing boarding data, were excluded.

The primary outcome was boarding time, door-to-provider time (D2P), length of stay for discharged patients (LOSD) and the percentage of patients who left the hospital before treatment was complete (LBTC).

In a multivariate analysis, increased boarding time was significantly associated with longer D2P time, LOSD time, and rates of LBTC.

Overall, D2P and LOSD increased by 0.8 minutes and 2.8 minutes, respectively, for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time. LBTC rates increased by 0.1% for each additional 10 minutes of boarding time.

However, boarding did not have a significant impact on operational metrics among hospitals with fewer than 20,000 visits per year.

Although more research is needed, the results indicate that boarding reduces the throughput of nonboarded patients at a ratio of approximately 4:1. The limited impact of ED efficiency measures on operations highlights the need for hospital-based solutions to boarding, Dr. Tyminski concluded.

“Overall, we expected that there would be an association between boarding and reductions in ED intake and operational efficiency,” said Dr. Napoli in an interview. “However, we were surprised the relationship continued to be as strong in a national study of nearly a quarter of all EDs, as it did in our prior local study,” he said. “Every 10 minutes of boarding in an ED is associated with an approximate 0.1% increase in LWBS and a 3-minute increase in LOSD. Extrapolating this association across the country, we predicted that nearly one million patients may have potentially not received ED care due to boarding,” he explained. “Not only does this potentially have a huge impact on hospital finances but also the overall health of our patients,” he added.

The key takeaway from the study is that boarding is a hospital capacity management issue, said Dr. Napoli. Hospital leadership must be directly involved in plans to mitigate or eliminate it to the extent possible; until then, boarding will continue to result in inefficient ED operations, he explained.

“As ED providers, we are limited in what we can do, but one area where we might be able to make the most impact is to optimize the care and throughput of the LOSD patients,” Dr. Tyminski said. More research is needed to see if interventions to reduce boarding correspond with equivalent improvements in emergency department intake and improved ED throughput, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Payments to rheumatologists from industry declined early in the COVID-19 pandemic but showed some rebound in 2021, based on information from the Open Payments Database (OPD).

The OPD was established in 2013 to improve transparency in financial relationships between industry and health care professionals in the United States, although many physicians and much of the general public is unaware of the OPD, Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, and colleagues wrote.

georgenight777/Thinkstock

The COVID-19 pandemic may have limited rheumatologists’ involvement with industry, but potential changes in financial relationships during the pandemic have not been well studied, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,047 rheumatologists who received at least one general payment from industry between August 2013 and December 2021. The total value of the payments was $288,326,257.

The data set included all general payments made to the physicians whose primary specialty was categorized as rheumatology in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System profile. The payment information came from the OPD and included payments between August 2013 and December 2021.

In this analysis, the periods before and after March 2020 were considered as before and after the pandemic, respectively.

At the onset of the pandemic, monthly payments to rheumatologists overall decreased by 65.1%, and the number of rheumatologists who received payments decreased by 39.8%; a decrease occurred across all levels of payment.

“However, the recovery trend in payments during the pandemic was higher among the rheumatologists with lower payments,” the researchers noted.

The most significant decreases across payment types occurred in travel and accommodation, which dropped by 98.2% at the start of the pandemic. Payments for speaking engagements and meals decreased by 72.3% and 72.0%, respectively, at the start of the pandemic; consulting payments decreased by 23.3%.

The number of rheumatologists with payments ranged from 3,547 in 2020 to 4,444 in 2015, and did not change significantly between 2014 and 2019. However, the median total payments increased from $730 in 2014 to $812 in 2019.

Compared with the 2014-2019 period, the number of rheumatologists with payments in 2020-2021 decreased by 21.7% and the payments per rheumatologist decreased by 41.9% (P < .001 for both).

In 2021, general payments to rheumatologists were still below levels from the 2014-2019 period.

The study findings were limited by the exclusion of rheumatologist without payments and the lack of data on confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the study is the first to show the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the financial relationships between U.S. rheumatologists and industry.

“Although there were recovering trends in general payments right after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed general payments remaining at low levels between 2020 and 2021,” they noted.

A previous study showed that general payments to rheumatologists between 2013 and 2015 were significantly associated with increased prescription of brand-name rheumatology drugs and health care use. But more long-term studies are needed “to investigate whether this downward trend in general payments [observed in the current study] has contributed to reducing undue influence on rheumatologists’ clinical practice,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed personal fees from Medical Network Systems unrelated to the current study. The study authors had no financial conflicts related to the current study, but continue to research financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies in Japan and the United States.

Payments to rheumatologists from industry declined early in the COVID-19 pandemic but showed some rebound in 2021, based on information from the Open Payments Database (OPD).

The OPD was established in 2013 to improve transparency in financial relationships between industry and health care professionals in the United States, although many physicians and much of the general public is unaware of the OPD, Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, and colleagues wrote.

georgenight777/Thinkstock

The COVID-19 pandemic may have limited rheumatologists’ involvement with industry, but potential changes in financial relationships during the pandemic have not been well studied, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,047 rheumatologists who received at least one general payment from industry between August 2013 and December 2021. The total value of the payments was $288,326,257.

The data set included all general payments made to the physicians whose primary specialty was categorized as rheumatology in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System profile. The payment information came from the OPD and included payments between August 2013 and December 2021.

In this analysis, the periods before and after March 2020 were considered as before and after the pandemic, respectively.

At the onset of the pandemic, monthly payments to rheumatologists overall decreased by 65.1%, and the number of rheumatologists who received payments decreased by 39.8%; a decrease occurred across all levels of payment.

“However, the recovery trend in payments during the pandemic was higher among the rheumatologists with lower payments,” the researchers noted.

The most significant decreases across payment types occurred in travel and accommodation, which dropped by 98.2% at the start of the pandemic. Payments for speaking engagements and meals decreased by 72.3% and 72.0%, respectively, at the start of the pandemic; consulting payments decreased by 23.3%.

The number of rheumatologists with payments ranged from 3,547 in 2020 to 4,444 in 2015, and did not change significantly between 2014 and 2019. However, the median total payments increased from $730 in 2014 to $812 in 2019.

Compared with the 2014-2019 period, the number of rheumatologists with payments in 2020-2021 decreased by 21.7% and the payments per rheumatologist decreased by 41.9% (P < .001 for both).

In 2021, general payments to rheumatologists were still below levels from the 2014-2019 period.

The study findings were limited by the exclusion of rheumatologist without payments and the lack of data on confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the study is the first to show the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the financial relationships between U.S. rheumatologists and industry.

“Although there were recovering trends in general payments right after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed general payments remaining at low levels between 2020 and 2021,” they noted.

A previous study showed that general payments to rheumatologists between 2013 and 2015 were significantly associated with increased prescription of brand-name rheumatology drugs and health care use. But more long-term studies are needed “to investigate whether this downward trend in general payments [observed in the current study] has contributed to reducing undue influence on rheumatologists’ clinical practice,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed personal fees from Medical Network Systems unrelated to the current study. The study authors had no financial conflicts related to the current study, but continue to research financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies in Japan and the United States.

Payments to rheumatologists from industry declined early in the COVID-19 pandemic but showed some rebound in 2021, based on information from the Open Payments Database (OPD).

The OPD was established in 2013 to improve transparency in financial relationships between industry and health care professionals in the United States, although many physicians and much of the general public is unaware of the OPD, Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, and colleagues wrote.

georgenight777/Thinkstock

The COVID-19 pandemic may have limited rheumatologists’ involvement with industry, but potential changes in financial relationships during the pandemic have not been well studied, they wrote.

In a study published in the Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,047 rheumatologists who received at least one general payment from industry between August 2013 and December 2021. The total value of the payments was $288,326,257.

The data set included all general payments made to the physicians whose primary specialty was categorized as rheumatology in the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System profile. The payment information came from the OPD and included payments between August 2013 and December 2021.

In this analysis, the periods before and after March 2020 were considered as before and after the pandemic, respectively.

At the onset of the pandemic, monthly payments to rheumatologists overall decreased by 65.1%, and the number of rheumatologists who received payments decreased by 39.8%; a decrease occurred across all levels of payment.

“However, the recovery trend in payments during the pandemic was higher among the rheumatologists with lower payments,” the researchers noted.

The most significant decreases across payment types occurred in travel and accommodation, which dropped by 98.2% at the start of the pandemic. Payments for speaking engagements and meals decreased by 72.3% and 72.0%, respectively, at the start of the pandemic; consulting payments decreased by 23.3%.

The number of rheumatologists with payments ranged from 3,547 in 2020 to 4,444 in 2015, and did not change significantly between 2014 and 2019. However, the median total payments increased from $730 in 2014 to $812 in 2019.

Compared with the 2014-2019 period, the number of rheumatologists with payments in 2020-2021 decreased by 21.7% and the payments per rheumatologist decreased by 41.9% (P < .001 for both).

In 2021, general payments to rheumatologists were still below levels from the 2014-2019 period.

The study findings were limited by the exclusion of rheumatologist without payments and the lack of data on confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the study is the first to show the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the financial relationships between U.S. rheumatologists and industry.

“Although there were recovering trends in general payments right after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed general payments remaining at low levels between 2020 and 2021,” they noted.

A previous study showed that general payments to rheumatologists between 2013 and 2015 were significantly associated with increased prescription of brand-name rheumatology drugs and health care use. But more long-term studies are needed “to investigate whether this downward trend in general payments [observed in the current study] has contributed to reducing undue influence on rheumatologists’ clinical practice,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed personal fees from Medical Network Systems unrelated to the current study. The study authors had no financial conflicts related to the current study, but continue to research financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies in Japan and the United States.

Weight loss after bariatric surgery was linked with visceral fat reduction as well as reduced blood pressure, fasting glucose, and left ventricular remodeling, based an imaging study in 213 patients.

“We found that ventricular function measured by strain imaging improved in both the left and right sides of the heart, but function measured in the traditional method using endocardial motion [in other words, ejection fraction] actually worsened,” senior investigator Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said in an interview.

Although previous studies have shown positive effects of weight loss on the heart after bariatric surgery, most have been short term and have not specifically examined the effects of visceral fat reduction, wrote the investigators.

“We are in the middle of an increasing epidemic of obesity worldwide, but particularly in the United States, where it is currently projected that one in two adults will be obese by 2030,” added Dr. Borlaug of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is growing in tandem, and numerous recent studies have shown that obesity is one of the strongest risk factors for developing HFpEF, and that the severity of HFpEF is intimately linked to excess body fat. This suggests that therapies to reduce body fat could improve the cardiac abnormalities that cause HFpEF, which was our focus in this study,” he explained.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers reviewed echocardiography data from 213 obese patients before and more than 180 days after bariatric surgery. They also measured abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) of 52 patients via computed tomography. The average age of the patients was 54 years, the average body mass index was 45 kg/m², and 67% were women. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea.

The primary outcome was changes in cardiac structure and function.

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients overall averaged a 23% reduction in body weight and a 22% reduction in BMI. In the 52 patients with abdominal scans, the VAT area decreased by 30% overall. Changes in left ventricular mass were significantly correlated to changes in the VAT.

Epicardial adipose thickness decreased by 14% overall. Left and right ventricular longitudinal strains improved at follow-up, but left atrial strain deteriorated, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the results suggest that left ventricular remodeling was associated with visceral adiposity rather than subcutaneous fat, the researchers wrote.

They also found that right ventricular strain was negatively correlated with VAT, but not with body weight or BMI.

“These findings suggest that weight loss, particularly reduction in visceral adiposity, benefits [right ventricular] structure and function in a manner akin to that observed in the [left ventricle],” the researchers noted.

Some surprises and limitations

Dr. Borlaug said he found some, but not all, of the results surprising. “Earlier studies had shown evidence for benefit from weight loss on cardiac structure and function, but had been limited by smaller sample sizes, shorter durations of evaluation, and variable methods used,” he said in an interview.

The findings that strain imaging showed both left and right ventricular function improved while EF declined “shows some of the problems with using EF, as it is affected by chamber size and geometry. We have previously shown that patients with HFpEF display an increase in fat around the heart, and this affects cardiac function and interaction between the left and right sides of the heart, so we expected to see that this fat depot would be reduced, and this was indeed the case,” Dr. Borlaug added.

In the current study, “visceral fat was most strongly tied to the heart remodeling in obesity, and changes in visceral fat were most strongly tied to improvements in cardiac structure following weight loss,” Dr. Borlaug told this news organization. “This further supports this concept that excess visceral fat plays a key role in HFpEF, especially in the abdomen and around the heart,” he said.

However, “The biggest surprise was the discordant effects in the left atrium,” Dr. Borlaug said. “Left atrial remodeling and dysfunction play a crucial role in HFpEF as well, and we expected that this would improve following weight loss, but in fact we observed that left atrial function deteriorated, and other indicators of atrial myopathy worsened, including higher estimates of left atrial pressures and increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation,” he said.

This difference emphasizes that weight loss may not address all abnormalities that lead to HFpEF, although a key limitation of the current study was the lack of a control group of patients with the same degree of obesity and no weight-loss intervention, and the deterioration in left atrial function might have been even greater in the absence of weight loss, Dr. Borlaug added.
 

Larger numbers support effects

Previous research shows that structural heart changes associated with obesity can be reversed through weight loss, but the current study fills a gap by providing long-term data in a larger sample than previously studied, wrote Paul Heidenreich, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University in an accompanying editorial).

“There has been uncertainty regarding the prolonged effect of weight loss on cardiac function; this study was larger than many prior studies and provided a longer follow-up,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“One unusual finding was that, while weight loss led to left ventricle reverse remodeling (reduction in wall thickness), the same effect was not seen for the left atrium; the left atrial size continued to increase,” he said. “I would have expected the left atrial changes to mirror the changes in the left ventricle,” he noted.

The findings support the greater cardiac risk of visceral vs. subcutaneous adipose tissue, and although body mass index will retain prognostic value, measures of central obesity are more likely predictors of cardiac structural changes and events and should be reported in clinical studies, Dr. Heidenreich wrote.

However, “We need a better understanding of the factors that influence left atrial remodeling and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Heidenreich told this news organization. “While left ventricular compliance and pressure play a role, there are other factors that need to be elucidated,” he said.

 

Studies in progress may inform practice

The current data call for further study to test novel treatments to facilitate weight loss in patients with HFpEF and those at risk for HFpEF, and some of these studies with medicines are underway, Dr. Borlaug said in the interview.

“Until such studies are completed, we will not truly understand the effects of weight loss on the heart, but the present data certainly provide strong support that patients who have obesity and HFpEF or are at risk for HFpEF should try to lose weight through lifestyle interventions,” he said. 

Whether the cardiac changes seen in the current study would be different with nonsurgical weight loss remains a key question because many obese patients are reluctant to undergo bariatric surgery, Dr. Borlaug said. “We cannot assess whether the effects would differ with nonsurgical weight loss, and this requires further study,” he added.

As for additional research, “Randomized, controlled trials of weight-loss interventions, with appropriate controls and comprehensive assessments of cardiac structure, function, and hemodynamics will be most informative,” said Dr. Borlaug. “Larger trials powered to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes such as heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death also are critically important to better understand the role of weight loss to treat and prevent HFpEF, the ultimate form of obesity-related heart disease,” he emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to lead author Dr. Hidemi Sorimachi of the Mayo Clinic from the Uehara Memorial Foundation, Japan, and to corresponding author Dr. Borlaug from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Borlaug also disclosed previous grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Medtronic, GlaxoSmithKline, Mesoblast, Novartis, and Tenax Therapeutics; and consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, Aria, Axon Therapies, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Imbria, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and VADovations. Dr. Heidenreich had no financial disclosures.

Weight loss after bariatric surgery was linked with visceral fat reduction as well as reduced blood pressure, fasting glucose, and left ventricular remodeling, based an imaging study in 213 patients.

“We found that ventricular function measured by strain imaging improved in both the left and right sides of the heart, but function measured in the traditional method using endocardial motion [in other words, ejection fraction] actually worsened,” senior investigator Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said in an interview.

Although previous studies have shown positive effects of weight loss on the heart after bariatric surgery, most have been short term and have not specifically examined the effects of visceral fat reduction, wrote the investigators.

“We are in the middle of an increasing epidemic of obesity worldwide, but particularly in the United States, where it is currently projected that one in two adults will be obese by 2030,” added Dr. Borlaug of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is growing in tandem, and numerous recent studies have shown that obesity is one of the strongest risk factors for developing HFpEF, and that the severity of HFpEF is intimately linked to excess body fat. This suggests that therapies to reduce body fat could improve the cardiac abnormalities that cause HFpEF, which was our focus in this study,” he explained.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers reviewed echocardiography data from 213 obese patients before and more than 180 days after bariatric surgery. They also measured abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) of 52 patients via computed tomography. The average age of the patients was 54 years, the average body mass index was 45 kg/m², and 67% were women. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea.

The primary outcome was changes in cardiac structure and function.

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients overall averaged a 23% reduction in body weight and a 22% reduction in BMI. In the 52 patients with abdominal scans, the VAT area decreased by 30% overall. Changes in left ventricular mass were significantly correlated to changes in the VAT.

Epicardial adipose thickness decreased by 14% overall. Left and right ventricular longitudinal strains improved at follow-up, but left atrial strain deteriorated, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the results suggest that left ventricular remodeling was associated with visceral adiposity rather than subcutaneous fat, the researchers wrote.

They also found that right ventricular strain was negatively correlated with VAT, but not with body weight or BMI.

“These findings suggest that weight loss, particularly reduction in visceral adiposity, benefits [right ventricular] structure and function in a manner akin to that observed in the [left ventricle],” the researchers noted.

Some surprises and limitations

Dr. Borlaug said he found some, but not all, of the results surprising. “Earlier studies had shown evidence for benefit from weight loss on cardiac structure and function, but had been limited by smaller sample sizes, shorter durations of evaluation, and variable methods used,” he said in an interview.

The findings that strain imaging showed both left and right ventricular function improved while EF declined “shows some of the problems with using EF, as it is affected by chamber size and geometry. We have previously shown that patients with HFpEF display an increase in fat around the heart, and this affects cardiac function and interaction between the left and right sides of the heart, so we expected to see that this fat depot would be reduced, and this was indeed the case,” Dr. Borlaug added.

In the current study, “visceral fat was most strongly tied to the heart remodeling in obesity, and changes in visceral fat were most strongly tied to improvements in cardiac structure following weight loss,” Dr. Borlaug told this news organization. “This further supports this concept that excess visceral fat plays a key role in HFpEF, especially in the abdomen and around the heart,” he said.

However, “The biggest surprise was the discordant effects in the left atrium,” Dr. Borlaug said. “Left atrial remodeling and dysfunction play a crucial role in HFpEF as well, and we expected that this would improve following weight loss, but in fact we observed that left atrial function deteriorated, and other indicators of atrial myopathy worsened, including higher estimates of left atrial pressures and increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation,” he said.

This difference emphasizes that weight loss may not address all abnormalities that lead to HFpEF, although a key limitation of the current study was the lack of a control group of patients with the same degree of obesity and no weight-loss intervention, and the deterioration in left atrial function might have been even greater in the absence of weight loss, Dr. Borlaug added.
 

Larger numbers support effects

Previous research shows that structural heart changes associated with obesity can be reversed through weight loss, but the current study fills a gap by providing long-term data in a larger sample than previously studied, wrote Paul Heidenreich, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University in an accompanying editorial).

“There has been uncertainty regarding the prolonged effect of weight loss on cardiac function; this study was larger than many prior studies and provided a longer follow-up,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“One unusual finding was that, while weight loss led to left ventricle reverse remodeling (reduction in wall thickness), the same effect was not seen for the left atrium; the left atrial size continued to increase,” he said. “I would have expected the left atrial changes to mirror the changes in the left ventricle,” he noted.

The findings support the greater cardiac risk of visceral vs. subcutaneous adipose tissue, and although body mass index will retain prognostic value, measures of central obesity are more likely predictors of cardiac structural changes and events and should be reported in clinical studies, Dr. Heidenreich wrote.

However, “We need a better understanding of the factors that influence left atrial remodeling and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Heidenreich told this news organization. “While left ventricular compliance and pressure play a role, there are other factors that need to be elucidated,” he said.

 

Studies in progress may inform practice

The current data call for further study to test novel treatments to facilitate weight loss in patients with HFpEF and those at risk for HFpEF, and some of these studies with medicines are underway, Dr. Borlaug said in the interview.

“Until such studies are completed, we will not truly understand the effects of weight loss on the heart, but the present data certainly provide strong support that patients who have obesity and HFpEF or are at risk for HFpEF should try to lose weight through lifestyle interventions,” he said. 

Whether the cardiac changes seen in the current study would be different with nonsurgical weight loss remains a key question because many obese patients are reluctant to undergo bariatric surgery, Dr. Borlaug said. “We cannot assess whether the effects would differ with nonsurgical weight loss, and this requires further study,” he added.

As for additional research, “Randomized, controlled trials of weight-loss interventions, with appropriate controls and comprehensive assessments of cardiac structure, function, and hemodynamics will be most informative,” said Dr. Borlaug. “Larger trials powered to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes such as heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death also are critically important to better understand the role of weight loss to treat and prevent HFpEF, the ultimate form of obesity-related heart disease,” he emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to lead author Dr. Hidemi Sorimachi of the Mayo Clinic from the Uehara Memorial Foundation, Japan, and to corresponding author Dr. Borlaug from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Borlaug also disclosed previous grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Medtronic, GlaxoSmithKline, Mesoblast, Novartis, and Tenax Therapeutics; and consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, Aria, Axon Therapies, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Imbria, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and VADovations. Dr. Heidenreich had no financial disclosures.

Weight loss after bariatric surgery was linked with visceral fat reduction as well as reduced blood pressure, fasting glucose, and left ventricular remodeling, based an imaging study in 213 patients.

“We found that ventricular function measured by strain imaging improved in both the left and right sides of the heart, but function measured in the traditional method using endocardial motion [in other words, ejection fraction] actually worsened,” senior investigator Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said in an interview.

Although previous studies have shown positive effects of weight loss on the heart after bariatric surgery, most have been short term and have not specifically examined the effects of visceral fat reduction, wrote the investigators.

“We are in the middle of an increasing epidemic of obesity worldwide, but particularly in the United States, where it is currently projected that one in two adults will be obese by 2030,” added Dr. Borlaug of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is growing in tandem, and numerous recent studies have shown that obesity is one of the strongest risk factors for developing HFpEF, and that the severity of HFpEF is intimately linked to excess body fat. This suggests that therapies to reduce body fat could improve the cardiac abnormalities that cause HFpEF, which was our focus in this study,” he explained.

In the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers reviewed echocardiography data from 213 obese patients before and more than 180 days after bariatric surgery. They also measured abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) of 52 patients via computed tomography. The average age of the patients was 54 years, the average body mass index was 45 kg/m², and 67% were women. Comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea.

The primary outcome was changes in cardiac structure and function.

After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, patients overall averaged a 23% reduction in body weight and a 22% reduction in BMI. In the 52 patients with abdominal scans, the VAT area decreased by 30% overall. Changes in left ventricular mass were significantly correlated to changes in the VAT.

Epicardial adipose thickness decreased by 14% overall. Left and right ventricular longitudinal strains improved at follow-up, but left atrial strain deteriorated, the researchers noted.

Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, the results suggest that left ventricular remodeling was associated with visceral adiposity rather than subcutaneous fat, the researchers wrote.

They also found that right ventricular strain was negatively correlated with VAT, but not with body weight or BMI.

“These findings suggest that weight loss, particularly reduction in visceral adiposity, benefits [right ventricular] structure and function in a manner akin to that observed in the [left ventricle],” the researchers noted.

Some surprises and limitations

Dr. Borlaug said he found some, but not all, of the results surprising. “Earlier studies had shown evidence for benefit from weight loss on cardiac structure and function, but had been limited by smaller sample sizes, shorter durations of evaluation, and variable methods used,” he said in an interview.

The findings that strain imaging showed both left and right ventricular function improved while EF declined “shows some of the problems with using EF, as it is affected by chamber size and geometry. We have previously shown that patients with HFpEF display an increase in fat around the heart, and this affects cardiac function and interaction between the left and right sides of the heart, so we expected to see that this fat depot would be reduced, and this was indeed the case,” Dr. Borlaug added.

In the current study, “visceral fat was most strongly tied to the heart remodeling in obesity, and changes in visceral fat were most strongly tied to improvements in cardiac structure following weight loss,” Dr. Borlaug told this news organization. “This further supports this concept that excess visceral fat plays a key role in HFpEF, especially in the abdomen and around the heart,” he said.

However, “The biggest surprise was the discordant effects in the left atrium,” Dr. Borlaug said. “Left atrial remodeling and dysfunction play a crucial role in HFpEF as well, and we expected that this would improve following weight loss, but in fact we observed that left atrial function deteriorated, and other indicators of atrial myopathy worsened, including higher estimates of left atrial pressures and increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation,” he said.

This difference emphasizes that weight loss may not address all abnormalities that lead to HFpEF, although a key limitation of the current study was the lack of a control group of patients with the same degree of obesity and no weight-loss intervention, and the deterioration in left atrial function might have been even greater in the absence of weight loss, Dr. Borlaug added.
 

Larger numbers support effects

Previous research shows that structural heart changes associated with obesity can be reversed through weight loss, but the current study fills a gap by providing long-term data in a larger sample than previously studied, wrote Paul Heidenreich, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University in an accompanying editorial).

“There has been uncertainty regarding the prolonged effect of weight loss on cardiac function; this study was larger than many prior studies and provided a longer follow-up,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“One unusual finding was that, while weight loss led to left ventricle reverse remodeling (reduction in wall thickness), the same effect was not seen for the left atrium; the left atrial size continued to increase,” he said. “I would have expected the left atrial changes to mirror the changes in the left ventricle,” he noted.

The findings support the greater cardiac risk of visceral vs. subcutaneous adipose tissue, and although body mass index will retain prognostic value, measures of central obesity are more likely predictors of cardiac structural changes and events and should be reported in clinical studies, Dr. Heidenreich wrote.

However, “We need a better understanding of the factors that influence left atrial remodeling and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Heidenreich told this news organization. “While left ventricular compliance and pressure play a role, there are other factors that need to be elucidated,” he said.

 

Studies in progress may inform practice

The current data call for further study to test novel treatments to facilitate weight loss in patients with HFpEF and those at risk for HFpEF, and some of these studies with medicines are underway, Dr. Borlaug said in the interview.

“Until such studies are completed, we will not truly understand the effects of weight loss on the heart, but the present data certainly provide strong support that patients who have obesity and HFpEF or are at risk for HFpEF should try to lose weight through lifestyle interventions,” he said. 

Whether the cardiac changes seen in the current study would be different with nonsurgical weight loss remains a key question because many obese patients are reluctant to undergo bariatric surgery, Dr. Borlaug said. “We cannot assess whether the effects would differ with nonsurgical weight loss, and this requires further study,” he added.

As for additional research, “Randomized, controlled trials of weight-loss interventions, with appropriate controls and comprehensive assessments of cardiac structure, function, and hemodynamics will be most informative,” said Dr. Borlaug. “Larger trials powered to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes such as heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death also are critically important to better understand the role of weight loss to treat and prevent HFpEF, the ultimate form of obesity-related heart disease,” he emphasized.

The study was supported in part by grants to lead author Dr. Hidemi Sorimachi of the Mayo Clinic from the Uehara Memorial Foundation, Japan, and to corresponding author Dr. Borlaug from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Borlaug also disclosed previous grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Medtronic, GlaxoSmithKline, Mesoblast, Novartis, and Tenax Therapeutics; and consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, Aria, Axon Therapies, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Imbria, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and VADovations. Dr. Heidenreich had no financial disclosures.

A provider-only patient care protocol was safe and efficient for delivery of emergency department care in response to pandemic-related staff shortages, based on data from nearly 3,000 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic sparked a shortage of health care personnel, according to Tanveer Gaibi, MD, of INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues. To help manage these challenges, the INOVA emergency department developed a Provider-Only Patients (POP) protocol for patients who required minimal nursing care.

In a study presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians 2022 Scientific Assembly, the researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort of patients with suspected COVID-19 who were treated in the emergency department using the POP protocol between Dec. 1, 2021, and Jan. 15, 2022. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 64, and all presented with COVID-19-related complaints, with an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of 4 or 5, with 1 being the most urgent and 5 being the least urgent.

Patients were triaged by a physician or nurse to determine POP status. Those deemed POP were seen and discharged directly by a physician or advanced-practice provider (APP). The researchers reviewed data from a total of 640 patients treated via the POP protocol and 2,386 patients who were not POP with ESI of 4 or 5.

Overall, the mean time from when a patient was initially seen by a provider to the discharge disposition was 48 minutes shorter for POP, and the mean time from discharge disposition placement to leaving the ED was 66 minutes shorter. None of the POP-protocol patients were readmitted within 72 hours of discharge. The researchers estimated that the 640 patients in the POP protocol saved approximately 1892.27 hours of nursing and 705.1 provider hours during the study period, and no additional physician hours or advanced-practice provider hours were needed.

The study findings suggest that POP holds up as a safe, efficient, and effective process that can reduce discharge length of stay and provider to disposition times. Although more research is needed, the POP model also may be considered to address staffing challenges unrelated to the pandemic, the researchers concluded.

“This study was conducted at [a] time when our emergency department was experiencing a sudden and disproportionate increase in volume related to the Omicron variant of COVID-19,” Dr. Gaibi told this news organization. “This novel process was developed by brainstorming untested ways of managing this increased demand. The research study was a natural outcome once the process was implemented,” he said.

“Once barriers to implementing this process were overcome, we were not surprised by the results,” Dr. Gaibi said. “Subtracting at the time for nursing process was anticipated to shorten cycle times.”

The clinical implications of POP relate to generalizability outside of the pandemic setting, Dr. Gaibi noted. “We anticipate that POP could be used for patients with minor complaints to greatly shorten their time in the emergency department,” he said.

“Potential barriers to the generalized use of POP relate, in part, to local administrative barriers related to nursing assessments,” Dr. Gaibi explained. “Further, POP patients should be simple and require little or no testing. Keeping to this strict definition of the provider-only patient may be a pitfall in terms of its hard wiring,” he added.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to study POP in ED patients with minor complaints not necessarily related to COVID-19, Dr. Gaibi said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A provider-only patient care protocol was safe and efficient for delivery of emergency department care in response to pandemic-related staff shortages, based on data from nearly 3,000 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic sparked a shortage of health care personnel, according to Tanveer Gaibi, MD, of INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues. To help manage these challenges, the INOVA emergency department developed a Provider-Only Patients (POP) protocol for patients who required minimal nursing care.

In a study presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians 2022 Scientific Assembly, the researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort of patients with suspected COVID-19 who were treated in the emergency department using the POP protocol between Dec. 1, 2021, and Jan. 15, 2022. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 64, and all presented with COVID-19-related complaints, with an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of 4 or 5, with 1 being the most urgent and 5 being the least urgent.

Patients were triaged by a physician or nurse to determine POP status. Those deemed POP were seen and discharged directly by a physician or advanced-practice provider (APP). The researchers reviewed data from a total of 640 patients treated via the POP protocol and 2,386 patients who were not POP with ESI of 4 or 5.

Overall, the mean time from when a patient was initially seen by a provider to the discharge disposition was 48 minutes shorter for POP, and the mean time from discharge disposition placement to leaving the ED was 66 minutes shorter. None of the POP-protocol patients were readmitted within 72 hours of discharge. The researchers estimated that the 640 patients in the POP protocol saved approximately 1892.27 hours of nursing and 705.1 provider hours during the study period, and no additional physician hours or advanced-practice provider hours were needed.

The study findings suggest that POP holds up as a safe, efficient, and effective process that can reduce discharge length of stay and provider to disposition times. Although more research is needed, the POP model also may be considered to address staffing challenges unrelated to the pandemic, the researchers concluded.

“This study was conducted at [a] time when our emergency department was experiencing a sudden and disproportionate increase in volume related to the Omicron variant of COVID-19,” Dr. Gaibi told this news organization. “This novel process was developed by brainstorming untested ways of managing this increased demand. The research study was a natural outcome once the process was implemented,” he said.

“Once barriers to implementing this process were overcome, we were not surprised by the results,” Dr. Gaibi said. “Subtracting at the time for nursing process was anticipated to shorten cycle times.”

The clinical implications of POP relate to generalizability outside of the pandemic setting, Dr. Gaibi noted. “We anticipate that POP could be used for patients with minor complaints to greatly shorten their time in the emergency department,” he said.

“Potential barriers to the generalized use of POP relate, in part, to local administrative barriers related to nursing assessments,” Dr. Gaibi explained. “Further, POP patients should be simple and require little or no testing. Keeping to this strict definition of the provider-only patient may be a pitfall in terms of its hard wiring,” he added.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to study POP in ED patients with minor complaints not necessarily related to COVID-19, Dr. Gaibi said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A provider-only patient care protocol was safe and efficient for delivery of emergency department care in response to pandemic-related staff shortages, based on data from nearly 3,000 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic sparked a shortage of health care personnel, according to Tanveer Gaibi, MD, of INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Va., and colleagues. To help manage these challenges, the INOVA emergency department developed a Provider-Only Patients (POP) protocol for patients who required minimal nursing care.

In a study presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians 2022 Scientific Assembly, the researchers reported the outcomes of a cohort of patients with suspected COVID-19 who were treated in the emergency department using the POP protocol between Dec. 1, 2021, and Jan. 15, 2022. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 64, and all presented with COVID-19-related complaints, with an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of 4 or 5, with 1 being the most urgent and 5 being the least urgent.

Patients were triaged by a physician or nurse to determine POP status. Those deemed POP were seen and discharged directly by a physician or advanced-practice provider (APP). The researchers reviewed data from a total of 640 patients treated via the POP protocol and 2,386 patients who were not POP with ESI of 4 or 5.

Overall, the mean time from when a patient was initially seen by a provider to the discharge disposition was 48 minutes shorter for POP, and the mean time from discharge disposition placement to leaving the ED was 66 minutes shorter. None of the POP-protocol patients were readmitted within 72 hours of discharge. The researchers estimated that the 640 patients in the POP protocol saved approximately 1892.27 hours of nursing and 705.1 provider hours during the study period, and no additional physician hours or advanced-practice provider hours were needed.

The study findings suggest that POP holds up as a safe, efficient, and effective process that can reduce discharge length of stay and provider to disposition times. Although more research is needed, the POP model also may be considered to address staffing challenges unrelated to the pandemic, the researchers concluded.

“This study was conducted at [a] time when our emergency department was experiencing a sudden and disproportionate increase in volume related to the Omicron variant of COVID-19,” Dr. Gaibi told this news organization. “This novel process was developed by brainstorming untested ways of managing this increased demand. The research study was a natural outcome once the process was implemented,” he said.

“Once barriers to implementing this process were overcome, we were not surprised by the results,” Dr. Gaibi said. “Subtracting at the time for nursing process was anticipated to shorten cycle times.”

The clinical implications of POP relate to generalizability outside of the pandemic setting, Dr. Gaibi noted. “We anticipate that POP could be used for patients with minor complaints to greatly shorten their time in the emergency department,” he said.

“Potential barriers to the generalized use of POP relate, in part, to local administrative barriers related to nursing assessments,” Dr. Gaibi explained. “Further, POP patients should be simple and require little or no testing. Keeping to this strict definition of the provider-only patient may be a pitfall in terms of its hard wiring,” he added.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to study POP in ED patients with minor complaints not necessarily related to COVID-19, Dr. Gaibi said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Monthly injections of dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 6 months to under 6 years after 16 weeks, in a study of 162 children at 31 treatment centers in North America and Europe.

Children younger than 6 years with moderate to severe AD have few options if their symptoms are uncontrolled with topical therapies, and persistent itchiness has a negative impact on quality of life for patients and families, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, and professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in the Lancet.

The study was the basis of the Food and Drug Administration expanded approval of dupilumab in June 2022, to include children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe AD, whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. Regulatory submission for this age group is under review by the European Medicines Agency, and by regulatory authorities in other countries, according to the manufacturers.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, was first approved in 2017 for treating adults with moderate to severe AD.

“There has not been a biologic approved before at such a young age, and for such a common disease,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “This is the drug that has revolutionized care of the most common inflammatory skin disease in children, and this is the pivotal study that brought it to market for the youngest children who suffer from the severe forms.”

The study also sets a precedent for a lower threshold for starting systemic medication in young children for treating moderate to severe disease given the absence of severe side effects and no need for lab monitoring, Dr. Paller noted. However, dupilumab will also be closely watched “for both impact on the developing immune system and the possibility that it will alter the long-term course of the eczema and the development of allergic comorbidities, such as lowering the risk of developing asthma, GI, allergy, and possibly other conditions.”

In the study, the researchers randomized 83 children aged 6 months up to 6 years to treatment with dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, and 79 to placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks; both groups also received topical corticosteroids. Dosage of dupilumab was based on body weight; those with a body weight of 5-15 kg received 200 mg, while those with a body weight of 15-30 kg received 300 mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks, defined as scores of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment.

After 16 weeks, 28% of dupilumab patients met the primary endpoint versus 4% of those on placebo (P < .0001). In addition, 53% of dupilumab patients met the key secondary endpoint of a 75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index, compared with 11% of patients on placebo (P < .0001). Treatment with dupilumab also resulted in significantly greater improvements in pruritus and skin pain, and sleep quality, as well as improved quality of life for patients and their caregivers, the authors reported.

Overall, adverse event rates were slightly lower in the dupilumab-treated patients, compared with patients on placebo (64% vs. 74%); there were no adverse events related to dupilumab that were serious or resulted in treatment discontinuation. Treatment-emergent adverse effects that were reported in 3% or more of patients and affected more of those on dupilumab than those on placebo included molluscum contagiosum (5% vs. 3%), viral gastroenteritis (4% vs. 0), rhinorrhea (5% vs. 1%), dental caries (5% vs. 0), and conjunctivitis (4% vs 0).

The rate of skin infections among the children on dupilumab was 12% vs. 24% among those on placebo.

Severe and treatment-related adverse events also were similar in both subgroups of body weight.

The findings were limited by the small number of patients younger than 2 years and the lack of study sites outside of North America and Europe, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind design and use of background topical therapy to provide a real-world safety and efficacy assessment in a very young population.
 

Overcoming injection issues

The safety profile for dupilumab, which is of the highest importance, “did not surprise me at all,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “My only surprise is that the placebo injections actually led to more injection site reactions than [with] dupilumab, but numbers were quite low in both groups.” (Rates were 2% among those on dupilumab and 3% among those on placebo.)

The major barrier to the use of dupilumab in clinical practice is the requirement for injection, which, she explained, can be “unbearable for some young children, and thus becomes impossible for parents because of lack of cooperation and their intensified concern about giving the injection,” because of their child’s response.

“We like to administer the first dose in the office, allowing us to teach parents a few tricks related to proper technique,” including audio and visual distraction, tactile stimulation before and during the injection, use of topical anesthetic if helpful, “and making sure that the medication is at room temperature before administration,” she said. Cost is another potential barrier; however, even public insurance has been covering the medication, often after optimized use of topical medications has been unsuccessful.
 

Future research questions

As for additional research, the current study had a relatively small number of patients younger than 2 years, and more data are needed for this age group, said Dr. Paller. “We also need better understanding of the safety of dupilumab administration when live vaccines are administered. Finally, we certainly want to know what additional effects dupilumab may have beyond just the efficacy for treating eczema.”

In particular, these questions include whether dupilumab modifies the long-term course of the disease, possibly reducing the risk of persistence of disease with advancing age, or even cures the disease if started at a young age, she said. In addition, research has yet to show whether dupilumab might reduce the risk of other atopic disorders, such as asthma, food allergy, and allergic rhinitis.

“Ongoing studies and real-life experiences in the next several years will help us to answer these questions,” Dr. Paller said.
 

Data support safety, efficacy, quality of life

AD is associated with immense quality of life impairment, Raj Chovatiya, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Most AD is initially diagnosed in early childhood, but previous treatment options for those with moderate to severe disease have been limited by safety concerns, which adds to the burden on infants and young children, and their parents and caregivers, said Dr. Chovatiya, who was not involved in the study.

“This phase 3 study showed that dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 mediated type 2 inflammatory signaling, provided both meaningful and statistically significant improvement in AD severity, extent of disease, and itch in patients,” he said. Dupilumab also improved children’s sleep quality and the overall quality of life in both patients and caregivers.

“These findings were quite similar to those described in older children and adults, where dupilumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate-severe AD and has demonstrated real-world safety and efficacy,” said Dr. Chovatiya. However, “the current study was limited to only a short-term analysis of 16 weeks, an ongoing open-label study should further address long-term treatment responses.”

The study was supported by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. In addition to being an investigator for Regeneron, and several other pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Paller has been a consultant with honorarium for Regeneron, Sanofi, and multiple other companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed serving as a consultant and speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi, but was not involved in the current study.

Monthly injections of dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 6 months to under 6 years after 16 weeks, in a study of 162 children at 31 treatment centers in North America and Europe.

Children younger than 6 years with moderate to severe AD have few options if their symptoms are uncontrolled with topical therapies, and persistent itchiness has a negative impact on quality of life for patients and families, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, and professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in the Lancet.

The study was the basis of the Food and Drug Administration expanded approval of dupilumab in June 2022, to include children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe AD, whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. Regulatory submission for this age group is under review by the European Medicines Agency, and by regulatory authorities in other countries, according to the manufacturers.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, was first approved in 2017 for treating adults with moderate to severe AD.

“There has not been a biologic approved before at such a young age, and for such a common disease,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “This is the drug that has revolutionized care of the most common inflammatory skin disease in children, and this is the pivotal study that brought it to market for the youngest children who suffer from the severe forms.”

The study also sets a precedent for a lower threshold for starting systemic medication in young children for treating moderate to severe disease given the absence of severe side effects and no need for lab monitoring, Dr. Paller noted. However, dupilumab will also be closely watched “for both impact on the developing immune system and the possibility that it will alter the long-term course of the eczema and the development of allergic comorbidities, such as lowering the risk of developing asthma, GI, allergy, and possibly other conditions.”

In the study, the researchers randomized 83 children aged 6 months up to 6 years to treatment with dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, and 79 to placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks; both groups also received topical corticosteroids. Dosage of dupilumab was based on body weight; those with a body weight of 5-15 kg received 200 mg, while those with a body weight of 15-30 kg received 300 mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks, defined as scores of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment.

After 16 weeks, 28% of dupilumab patients met the primary endpoint versus 4% of those on placebo (P < .0001). In addition, 53% of dupilumab patients met the key secondary endpoint of a 75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index, compared with 11% of patients on placebo (P < .0001). Treatment with dupilumab also resulted in significantly greater improvements in pruritus and skin pain, and sleep quality, as well as improved quality of life for patients and their caregivers, the authors reported.

Overall, adverse event rates were slightly lower in the dupilumab-treated patients, compared with patients on placebo (64% vs. 74%); there were no adverse events related to dupilumab that were serious or resulted in treatment discontinuation. Treatment-emergent adverse effects that were reported in 3% or more of patients and affected more of those on dupilumab than those on placebo included molluscum contagiosum (5% vs. 3%), viral gastroenteritis (4% vs. 0), rhinorrhea (5% vs. 1%), dental caries (5% vs. 0), and conjunctivitis (4% vs 0).

The rate of skin infections among the children on dupilumab was 12% vs. 24% among those on placebo.

Severe and treatment-related adverse events also were similar in both subgroups of body weight.

The findings were limited by the small number of patients younger than 2 years and the lack of study sites outside of North America and Europe, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind design and use of background topical therapy to provide a real-world safety and efficacy assessment in a very young population.
 

Overcoming injection issues

The safety profile for dupilumab, which is of the highest importance, “did not surprise me at all,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “My only surprise is that the placebo injections actually led to more injection site reactions than [with] dupilumab, but numbers were quite low in both groups.” (Rates were 2% among those on dupilumab and 3% among those on placebo.)

The major barrier to the use of dupilumab in clinical practice is the requirement for injection, which, she explained, can be “unbearable for some young children, and thus becomes impossible for parents because of lack of cooperation and their intensified concern about giving the injection,” because of their child’s response.

“We like to administer the first dose in the office, allowing us to teach parents a few tricks related to proper technique,” including audio and visual distraction, tactile stimulation before and during the injection, use of topical anesthetic if helpful, “and making sure that the medication is at room temperature before administration,” she said. Cost is another potential barrier; however, even public insurance has been covering the medication, often after optimized use of topical medications has been unsuccessful.
 

Future research questions

As for additional research, the current study had a relatively small number of patients younger than 2 years, and more data are needed for this age group, said Dr. Paller. “We also need better understanding of the safety of dupilumab administration when live vaccines are administered. Finally, we certainly want to know what additional effects dupilumab may have beyond just the efficacy for treating eczema.”

In particular, these questions include whether dupilumab modifies the long-term course of the disease, possibly reducing the risk of persistence of disease with advancing age, or even cures the disease if started at a young age, she said. In addition, research has yet to show whether dupilumab might reduce the risk of other atopic disorders, such as asthma, food allergy, and allergic rhinitis.

“Ongoing studies and real-life experiences in the next several years will help us to answer these questions,” Dr. Paller said.
 

Data support safety, efficacy, quality of life

AD is associated with immense quality of life impairment, Raj Chovatiya, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Most AD is initially diagnosed in early childhood, but previous treatment options for those with moderate to severe disease have been limited by safety concerns, which adds to the burden on infants and young children, and their parents and caregivers, said Dr. Chovatiya, who was not involved in the study.

“This phase 3 study showed that dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 mediated type 2 inflammatory signaling, provided both meaningful and statistically significant improvement in AD severity, extent of disease, and itch in patients,” he said. Dupilumab also improved children’s sleep quality and the overall quality of life in both patients and caregivers.

“These findings were quite similar to those described in older children and adults, where dupilumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate-severe AD and has demonstrated real-world safety and efficacy,” said Dr. Chovatiya. However, “the current study was limited to only a short-term analysis of 16 weeks, an ongoing open-label study should further address long-term treatment responses.”

The study was supported by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. In addition to being an investigator for Regeneron, and several other pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Paller has been a consultant with honorarium for Regeneron, Sanofi, and multiple other companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed serving as a consultant and speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi, but was not involved in the current study.

Monthly injections of dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 6 months to under 6 years after 16 weeks, in a study of 162 children at 31 treatment centers in North America and Europe.

Children younger than 6 years with moderate to severe AD have few options if their symptoms are uncontrolled with topical therapies, and persistent itchiness has a negative impact on quality of life for patients and families, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, and professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in the Lancet.

The study was the basis of the Food and Drug Administration expanded approval of dupilumab in June 2022, to include children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate to severe AD, whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. Regulatory submission for this age group is under review by the European Medicines Agency, and by regulatory authorities in other countries, according to the manufacturers.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, was first approved in 2017 for treating adults with moderate to severe AD.

“There has not been a biologic approved before at such a young age, and for such a common disease,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “This is the drug that has revolutionized care of the most common inflammatory skin disease in children, and this is the pivotal study that brought it to market for the youngest children who suffer from the severe forms.”

The study also sets a precedent for a lower threshold for starting systemic medication in young children for treating moderate to severe disease given the absence of severe side effects and no need for lab monitoring, Dr. Paller noted. However, dupilumab will also be closely watched “for both impact on the developing immune system and the possibility that it will alter the long-term course of the eczema and the development of allergic comorbidities, such as lowering the risk of developing asthma, GI, allergy, and possibly other conditions.”

In the study, the researchers randomized 83 children aged 6 months up to 6 years to treatment with dupilumab, administered subcutaneously, and 79 to placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks; both groups also received topical corticosteroids. Dosage of dupilumab was based on body weight; those with a body weight of 5-15 kg received 200 mg, while those with a body weight of 15-30 kg received 300 mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks, defined as scores of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment.

After 16 weeks, 28% of dupilumab patients met the primary endpoint versus 4% of those on placebo (P < .0001). In addition, 53% of dupilumab patients met the key secondary endpoint of a 75% improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index, compared with 11% of patients on placebo (P < .0001). Treatment with dupilumab also resulted in significantly greater improvements in pruritus and skin pain, and sleep quality, as well as improved quality of life for patients and their caregivers, the authors reported.

Overall, adverse event rates were slightly lower in the dupilumab-treated patients, compared with patients on placebo (64% vs. 74%); there were no adverse events related to dupilumab that were serious or resulted in treatment discontinuation. Treatment-emergent adverse effects that were reported in 3% or more of patients and affected more of those on dupilumab than those on placebo included molluscum contagiosum (5% vs. 3%), viral gastroenteritis (4% vs. 0), rhinorrhea (5% vs. 1%), dental caries (5% vs. 0), and conjunctivitis (4% vs 0).

The rate of skin infections among the children on dupilumab was 12% vs. 24% among those on placebo.

Severe and treatment-related adverse events also were similar in both subgroups of body weight.

The findings were limited by the small number of patients younger than 2 years and the lack of study sites outside of North America and Europe, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind design and use of background topical therapy to provide a real-world safety and efficacy assessment in a very young population.
 

Overcoming injection issues

The safety profile for dupilumab, which is of the highest importance, “did not surprise me at all,” Dr. Paller said in an interview. “My only surprise is that the placebo injections actually led to more injection site reactions than [with] dupilumab, but numbers were quite low in both groups.” (Rates were 2% among those on dupilumab and 3% among those on placebo.)

The major barrier to the use of dupilumab in clinical practice is the requirement for injection, which, she explained, can be “unbearable for some young children, and thus becomes impossible for parents because of lack of cooperation and their intensified concern about giving the injection,” because of their child’s response.

“We like to administer the first dose in the office, allowing us to teach parents a few tricks related to proper technique,” including audio and visual distraction, tactile stimulation before and during the injection, use of topical anesthetic if helpful, “and making sure that the medication is at room temperature before administration,” she said. Cost is another potential barrier; however, even public insurance has been covering the medication, often after optimized use of topical medications has been unsuccessful.
 

Future research questions

As for additional research, the current study had a relatively small number of patients younger than 2 years, and more data are needed for this age group, said Dr. Paller. “We also need better understanding of the safety of dupilumab administration when live vaccines are administered. Finally, we certainly want to know what additional effects dupilumab may have beyond just the efficacy for treating eczema.”

In particular, these questions include whether dupilumab modifies the long-term course of the disease, possibly reducing the risk of persistence of disease with advancing age, or even cures the disease if started at a young age, she said. In addition, research has yet to show whether dupilumab might reduce the risk of other atopic disorders, such as asthma, food allergy, and allergic rhinitis.

“Ongoing studies and real-life experiences in the next several years will help us to answer these questions,” Dr. Paller said.
 

Data support safety, efficacy, quality of life

AD is associated with immense quality of life impairment, Raj Chovatiya, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Most AD is initially diagnosed in early childhood, but previous treatment options for those with moderate to severe disease have been limited by safety concerns, which adds to the burden on infants and young children, and their parents and caregivers, said Dr. Chovatiya, who was not involved in the study.

“This phase 3 study showed that dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 mediated type 2 inflammatory signaling, provided both meaningful and statistically significant improvement in AD severity, extent of disease, and itch in patients,” he said. Dupilumab also improved children’s sleep quality and the overall quality of life in both patients and caregivers.

“These findings were quite similar to those described in older children and adults, where dupilumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate-severe AD and has demonstrated real-world safety and efficacy,” said Dr. Chovatiya. However, “the current study was limited to only a short-term analysis of 16 weeks, an ongoing open-label study should further address long-term treatment responses.”

The study was supported by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. In addition to being an investigator for Regeneron, and several other pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Paller has been a consultant with honorarium for Regeneron, Sanofi, and multiple other companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed serving as a consultant and speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi, but was not involved in the current study.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.

Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Catalin205/Thinkstock

In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.

Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.

The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.

All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.

Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.

“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.

The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.

“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.

The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.

Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Catalin205/Thinkstock

In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.

Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.

The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.

All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.

Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.

“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.

The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.

“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.

The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.

Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

Catalin205/Thinkstock

In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.

Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.

The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.

All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.

Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.

“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.

The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.

“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.

The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.