Clinical Psychiatry News

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day. 

We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screen time has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told this news organization, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screen time effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”

The latest research, said Dr. Mansfield, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.

Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screen time is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to this news organization. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screen time rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
 

Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?

UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.

The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.

But Dr. Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”

While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Dr. Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.” 

Sakshi Ghai, PhD, Dr. Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Dr. Metitieri’s concerns, “Screen time as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screen time? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screen time may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
 

The Key Is the What and Where

Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Dr. Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Dr. Ghai. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”

On the other hand, Dr. Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said. 

Dr. Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”

Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screen time usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screen time on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Dr. Mansfield.
 

Are School Bans Too Restrictive?

Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Dr. Mansfield.

For concerned parents and schools, Dr. Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”

Mirroring Dr. Metitieri’s outlook, Dr. Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimize their use of digital devices.”

Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, MD, PhD, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Dr. Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screen time ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”

The issue of children’s screen time is complex. Understanding the content and context of screen time, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Dr. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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