Clinician Reviews

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

An antiviral therapy in early development has the potential to prevent COVID-19 infections when given as a nasal spray as little as 4 hours before exposure. It also appears to work as a treatment if used within 4 hours after infection inside the nose, new research reveals. 

Known as TriSb92 (brand name Covidin, from drugmaker Pandemblock Oy in Finland), the viral inhibitor also appears effective against all coronavirus variants of concern, neutralizing even the Omicron variants BA.5, XBB, and BQ.1.1 in laboratory and mice studies. 

Unlike a COVID vaccine that boosts a person’s immune system as protection, the antiviral nasal spray works more directly by blocking the virus, acting as a “biological mask in the nasal cavity,” according to the biotechnology company set up to develop the treatment. 

The product targets a stable site on the spike protein of the virus that is not known to mutate. This same site is shared among many variants of the COVID virus, so it could be effective against future variants as well, researchers note.

“In animal models, by directly inactivating the virus, TriSb92 offers immediate and robust protection” against coronavirus infection and severe COVID, said Anna R. Mäkelä, PhD, lead author of the study and a senior scientist in the department of virology at the University of Helsinki. 

The study was published online in Nature Communications.
 

A potential first line of defense

Even in cases where the antiviral does not prevent coronavirus infection, the treatment could slow infection. This could happen by limiting how much virus could replicate early in the skin inside the nose and nasopharynx (the upper part of the throat), said Dr. Mäkelä, who is also CEO of Pandemblock Oy, the company set up to develop the product.

“TriSb92 could effectively tip the balance in favor of the [the person] and thereby help to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 disease,” she said. 

The antiviral also could offer an alternative to people who cannot or do not respond to a vaccine.

“Many elderly people as well as individuals who are immunodeficient for various reasons do not respond to vaccines and are in the need of other protective measures,” said Kalle Saksela, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a virologist at the University of Helsinki.
 

Multiple doses needed? 

TriSb92 is “one of multiple nasal spray approaches but unlikely to be as durable as effective nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“The sprays generally require multiple doses per day, whereas a single dose of a nasal vaccine may protect for months,” he said.

“Both have the allure of being variant-proof,” Dr. Topol added. 
 

Thinking small

Many laboratories are shifting from treatments using monoclonal antibodies to treatments using smaller antibody fragments called “nanobodies” because they are more cost-effective and are able to last longer in storage, Dr. Mäkelä and colleagues noted. 

Several of these nanobodies have shown promise against viruses in cell culture or animal models, including as an intranasal preventive treatment for SARS-CoV-2. 

One of these smaller antibodies is being developed from llamas for example; another comes from experiments with yeast to develop synthetic nanobodies; and in a third case, researchers isolated nanobodies from llamas and from mice and showed they could neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

These nanobodies and TriSb92 target a specific part of the coronavirus spike protein called the receptor-binding domain (RBD). The RBD is where the coronavirus attaches to cells in the body. These agents essentially trick the virus by changing the structure of the outside of cells, so they look like a virus has already fused to them. This way, the virus moves on. 
 

Key findings

The researchers compared mice treated with TriSb92 before and after exposure to SARS-CoV-2. When given in advance, none of the treated mice had SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their lungs, while untreated mice in the comparison group had “abundant” levels.

Other evidence of viral infection showed similar differences between treated and untreated mice in the protective lining of cells called the epithelium inside the nose, nasal mucosa, and airways. 

Similarly, when given 2 or 4 hours after SARS-CoV-2 had already infected the epithelium, TriSb92 was linked to a complete lack of the virus’s RNA in the lungs.

It was more effective against the virus, though, when given before infection rather than after, “perhaps due to the initial establishment of the infection,” the researchers note.

The company led by Dr. Mäkelä is now working to secure funding for clinical trials of TriSb92 in humans. 

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

An antiviral therapy in early development has the potential to prevent COVID-19 infections when given as a nasal spray as little as 4 hours before exposure. It also appears to work as a treatment if used within 4 hours after infection inside the nose, new research reveals. 

Known as TriSb92 (brand name Covidin, from drugmaker Pandemblock Oy in Finland), the viral inhibitor also appears effective against all coronavirus variants of concern, neutralizing even the Omicron variants BA.5, XBB, and BQ.1.1 in laboratory and mice studies. 

Unlike a COVID vaccine that boosts a person’s immune system as protection, the antiviral nasal spray works more directly by blocking the virus, acting as a “biological mask in the nasal cavity,” according to the biotechnology company set up to develop the treatment. 

The product targets a stable site on the spike protein of the virus that is not known to mutate. This same site is shared among many variants of the COVID virus, so it could be effective against future variants as well, researchers note.

“In animal models, by directly inactivating the virus, TriSb92 offers immediate and robust protection” against coronavirus infection and severe COVID, said Anna R. Mäkelä, PhD, lead author of the study and a senior scientist in the department of virology at the University of Helsinki. 

The study was published online in Nature Communications.
 

A potential first line of defense

Even in cases where the antiviral does not prevent coronavirus infection, the treatment could slow infection. This could happen by limiting how much virus could replicate early in the skin inside the nose and nasopharynx (the upper part of the throat), said Dr. Mäkelä, who is also CEO of Pandemblock Oy, the company set up to develop the product.

“TriSb92 could effectively tip the balance in favor of the [the person] and thereby help to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 disease,” she said. 

The antiviral also could offer an alternative to people who cannot or do not respond to a vaccine.

“Many elderly people as well as individuals who are immunodeficient for various reasons do not respond to vaccines and are in the need of other protective measures,” said Kalle Saksela, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a virologist at the University of Helsinki.
 

Multiple doses needed? 

TriSb92 is “one of multiple nasal spray approaches but unlikely to be as durable as effective nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“The sprays generally require multiple doses per day, whereas a single dose of a nasal vaccine may protect for months,” he said.

“Both have the allure of being variant-proof,” Dr. Topol added. 
 

Thinking small

Many laboratories are shifting from treatments using monoclonal antibodies to treatments using smaller antibody fragments called “nanobodies” because they are more cost-effective and are able to last longer in storage, Dr. Mäkelä and colleagues noted. 

Several of these nanobodies have shown promise against viruses in cell culture or animal models, including as an intranasal preventive treatment for SARS-CoV-2. 

One of these smaller antibodies is being developed from llamas for example; another comes from experiments with yeast to develop synthetic nanobodies; and in a third case, researchers isolated nanobodies from llamas and from mice and showed they could neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

These nanobodies and TriSb92 target a specific part of the coronavirus spike protein called the receptor-binding domain (RBD). The RBD is where the coronavirus attaches to cells in the body. These agents essentially trick the virus by changing the structure of the outside of cells, so they look like a virus has already fused to them. This way, the virus moves on. 
 

Key findings

The researchers compared mice treated with TriSb92 before and after exposure to SARS-CoV-2. When given in advance, none of the treated mice had SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their lungs, while untreated mice in the comparison group had “abundant” levels.

Other evidence of viral infection showed similar differences between treated and untreated mice in the protective lining of cells called the epithelium inside the nose, nasal mucosa, and airways. 

Similarly, when given 2 or 4 hours after SARS-CoV-2 had already infected the epithelium, TriSb92 was linked to a complete lack of the virus’s RNA in the lungs.

It was more effective against the virus, though, when given before infection rather than after, “perhaps due to the initial establishment of the infection,” the researchers note.

The company led by Dr. Mäkelä is now working to secure funding for clinical trials of TriSb92 in humans. 

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

An antiviral therapy in early development has the potential to prevent COVID-19 infections when given as a nasal spray as little as 4 hours before exposure. It also appears to work as a treatment if used within 4 hours after infection inside the nose, new research reveals. 

Known as TriSb92 (brand name Covidin, from drugmaker Pandemblock Oy in Finland), the viral inhibitor also appears effective against all coronavirus variants of concern, neutralizing even the Omicron variants BA.5, XBB, and BQ.1.1 in laboratory and mice studies. 

Unlike a COVID vaccine that boosts a person’s immune system as protection, the antiviral nasal spray works more directly by blocking the virus, acting as a “biological mask in the nasal cavity,” according to the biotechnology company set up to develop the treatment. 

The product targets a stable site on the spike protein of the virus that is not known to mutate. This same site is shared among many variants of the COVID virus, so it could be effective against future variants as well, researchers note.

“In animal models, by directly inactivating the virus, TriSb92 offers immediate and robust protection” against coronavirus infection and severe COVID, said Anna R. Mäkelä, PhD, lead author of the study and a senior scientist in the department of virology at the University of Helsinki. 

The study was published online in Nature Communications.
 

A potential first line of defense

Even in cases where the antiviral does not prevent coronavirus infection, the treatment could slow infection. This could happen by limiting how much virus could replicate early in the skin inside the nose and nasopharynx (the upper part of the throat), said Dr. Mäkelä, who is also CEO of Pandemblock Oy, the company set up to develop the product.

“TriSb92 could effectively tip the balance in favor of the [the person] and thereby help to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 disease,” she said. 

The antiviral also could offer an alternative to people who cannot or do not respond to a vaccine.

“Many elderly people as well as individuals who are immunodeficient for various reasons do not respond to vaccines and are in the need of other protective measures,” said Kalle Saksela, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a virologist at the University of Helsinki.
 

Multiple doses needed? 

TriSb92 is “one of multiple nasal spray approaches but unlikely to be as durable as effective nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“The sprays generally require multiple doses per day, whereas a single dose of a nasal vaccine may protect for months,” he said.

“Both have the allure of being variant-proof,” Dr. Topol added. 
 

Thinking small

Many laboratories are shifting from treatments using monoclonal antibodies to treatments using smaller antibody fragments called “nanobodies” because they are more cost-effective and are able to last longer in storage, Dr. Mäkelä and colleagues noted. 

Several of these nanobodies have shown promise against viruses in cell culture or animal models, including as an intranasal preventive treatment for SARS-CoV-2. 

One of these smaller antibodies is being developed from llamas for example; another comes from experiments with yeast to develop synthetic nanobodies; and in a third case, researchers isolated nanobodies from llamas and from mice and showed they could neutralize the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

These nanobodies and TriSb92 target a specific part of the coronavirus spike protein called the receptor-binding domain (RBD). The RBD is where the coronavirus attaches to cells in the body. These agents essentially trick the virus by changing the structure of the outside of cells, so they look like a virus has already fused to them. This way, the virus moves on. 
 

Key findings

The researchers compared mice treated with TriSb92 before and after exposure to SARS-CoV-2. When given in advance, none of the treated mice had SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their lungs, while untreated mice in the comparison group had “abundant” levels.

Other evidence of viral infection showed similar differences between treated and untreated mice in the protective lining of cells called the epithelium inside the nose, nasal mucosa, and airways. 

Similarly, when given 2 or 4 hours after SARS-CoV-2 had already infected the epithelium, TriSb92 was linked to a complete lack of the virus’s RNA in the lungs.

It was more effective against the virus, though, when given before infection rather than after, “perhaps due to the initial establishment of the infection,” the researchers note.

The company led by Dr. Mäkelä is now working to secure funding for clinical trials of TriSb92 in humans. 

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

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation reduced de novo thrombosis in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, based on data from 334 adults.

Patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia are at increased risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding, therefore data to identify the lowest effective anticoagulant dose are needed, wrote Vincent Labbé, MD, of Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

Previous studies of different anticoagulation strategies for noncritically ill and critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have shown contrasting results, but some institutions recommend a high-dose regimen in the wake of data showing macrovascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with standard anticoagulation, the authors wrote.

However, no previously published studies have compared the effectiveness of the three anticoagulation strategies: high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA), standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and therapeutic anticoagulation (TA), they said.

In the open-label Anticoagulation COVID-19 (ANTICOVID) trial, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers identified consecutively hospitalized adults aged 18 years and older being treated for hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in 23 centers in France between April 2021 and December 2021.

The patients were randomly assigned to SD-PA (116 patients), HD-PA (111 patients), and TA (112 patients) using low-molecular-weight heparin for 14 days, or until either hospital discharge or weaning from supplemental oxygen for 48 consecutive hours, whichever outcome occurred first.  The HD-PA patients received two times the SD-PA dose. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 years, and approximately two-thirds were men; race and ethnicity data were not collected. Participants had no macrovascular thrombosis at the start of the study.

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and time to clinical improvement (defined as the time from randomization to a 2-point improvement on a 7-category respiratory function scale).

The secondary outcome was a combination of safety and efficacy at day 28 that included a composite of thrombosis (ischemic stroke, noncerebrovascular arterial thrombosis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary artery thrombosis, and central venous catheter–related deep venous thrombosis), major bleeding, or all-cause death.

For the primary outcome, results were similar among the groups; HD-PA had no significant benefit over SD-PA or TA. All-cause death rates for SD-PA, HD-PA, and TA patients were 14%, 12%, and 13%, respectively. The time to clinical improvement for the three groups was approximately 8 days, 9 days, and 8 days, respectively. Results for the primary outcome were consistent across all prespecified subgroups.

However, HD-PA was associated with a significant fourfold reduced risk of de novo thrombosis compared with SD-PA (5.5% vs. 20.2%) with no observed increase in major bleeding. TA was not associated with any significant improvement in primary or secondary outcomes compared with HD-PA or SD-PA.

The current study findings of no improvement in survival or disease resolution in patients with a higher anticoagulant dose reflects data from previous studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Our study results together with those of previous RCTs support the premise that the role of microvascular thrombosis in worsening organ dysfunction may be narrower than estimated,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on microvascular (vs. macrovascular) thrombosis at baseline, and the predominance of the Delta variant of COVID-19 among the study participants, which may have contributed to a lower mortality rate, the researchers noted.

However, given the significant reduction in de novo thrombosis, the results support the routine use of HD-PA in patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, they concluded.
 

Results inform current clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 manifested the highest risk for thromboembolic complications, especially patients in the intensive care setting,” and early reports suggested that standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulant therapy might be insufficient to prevent thrombotic events, Richard C. Becker, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and Thomas L. Ortel, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although there have been several studies that have investigated the role of anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, this is the first study that specifically compared a standard, prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to a ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen and to a full therapeutic dose regimen,” Dr. Ortel said in an interview.

“Given the concerns about an increased thrombotic risk with prophylactic dose anticoagulation, and the potential bleeding risk associated with a full therapeutic dose of anticoagulation, this approach enabled the investigators to explore the efficacy and safety of an intermediate dose between these two extremes,” he said.

In the current study, “It was notable that the primary driver of the improved outcomes with the ‘high-dose’ prophylactic regimen reflected the fourfold reduction in macrovascular thrombosis, a finding that was not observed in other studies investigating anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19,” Dr. Ortel told this news organization. “Much initial concern about progression of disease in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 focused on the role of microvascular thrombosis, which appears to be less important in this process, or, alternatively, less responsive to anticoagulant therapy.”

The clinical takeaway from the study, Dr. Ortel said, is the decreased risk for venous thromboembolism with a high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation strategy compared with a standard-dose prophylactic regimen for patients hospitalized with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, “leading to an improved net clinical outcome.”

Looking ahead, “Additional research is needed to determine whether a higher dose of prophylactic anticoagulation would be beneficial for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not in an intensive care unit setting,” Dr. Ortel said. Studies are needed to determine whether therapeutic interventions are equally beneficial in patients with different coronavirus variants, since most patients in the current study were infected with the Delta variant, he added.

The study was supported by LEO Pharma. Dr. Labbé disclosed grants from LEO Pharma during the study and fees from AOP Health unrelated to the current study.

Dr. Becker disclosed personal fees from Novartis Data Safety Monitoring Board, Ionis Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Basking Biosciences Scientific Advisory Board unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ortel disclosed grants from the National Institutes of Health, Instrumentation Laboratory, Stago, and Siemens; contract fees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and honoraria from UpToDate unrelated to the current study.
 

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

During 2 days of hearings on potential modifications to the isotretinoin iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), there was much agreement among dermatologists, industry representatives, and Food and Drug Administration representatives that provider and patient burdens persist after the chaotic rollout of the new REMS platform at the end of 2021.

On March 29, at the end of the FDA’s joint meeting of two advisory committees that addressed ways to improve the iPLEDGE program, most panelists voted to change the 19-day lockout period for patients who can become pregnant, and the requirement that every month, providers must document counseling of those who cannot get pregnant and are taking the drug for acne.

However, there was no consensus on whether there should be a lockout at all or for how long, and what an appropriate interval for counseling those who cannot get pregnant would be, if not monthly. Those voting on the questions repeatedly cited a lack of data to make well-informed decisions.

The meeting of the two panels, the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, was held March 28-29, to discuss proposed changes to iPLEDGE requirements, to minimize the program’s burden on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies – while maintaining safe use of the highly teratogenic drug.

Lockout based on outdated reasoning

John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatologist and epidemiologist, and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, speaking as deputy chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) iPLEDGE work group, described the burden of getting the drug to patients. He was not on the panel, but spoke during the open public hearing.

“Compared to other acne medications, the time it takes to successfully go from prescribed (isotretinoin) to when the patient actually has it in their hands is 5- to 10-fold higher,” he said.

Many don’t have a monthly cycle

But Dr. Barbieri said that reasoning is outdated.

“The current program’s focus on the menstrual cycle is really an antiquated approach,” he said. “Many patients do not have a monthly cycle due to medical conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome, or due to [certain kinds of] contraception.”

He added, “By removing this 19-day lockout and, really, the archaic timing around the menstrual cycle in general in this program, we can simplify the program, improve it, and better align it with the real-world biology of our patients.” He added that patients are often missing the 7-day window for picking up their prescriptions through no fault of their own. Speakers at the hearing also mentioned insurance hassles and ordering delays.


 

Communication with IPMG

Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and outgoing chair of the AADA iPLEDGE work group, cited difficulty in working with IPMG on modifications as another barrier. She also spoke during the open public hearing.

UCSF

“Despite many, many attempts to work with the IPMG, we are not aware of any organizational structure or key leaders to communicate with. Instead we have been given repeatedly a generic email address for trying to establish a working relationship and we believe this may explain the inaction of the IPMG since our proposals 4 years ago in 2019.”

Among those proposals, she said, were allowing telemedicine visits as part of the iPLEDGE REMS program and reducing counseling attestation to every 6 months instead of monthly for those who cannot become pregnant.

She pointed to the chaotic rollout of modifications to the iPLEDGE program on a new website at the end of 2021.

In 2021, she said, “despite 6 months of notification, no prescriber input was solicited before revamping the website. This lack of transparency and accountability has been a major hurdle in improving iPLEDGE.”

Dr. Barbieri called the rollout “a debacle” that could have been mitigated with communication with IPMG. “We warned about every issue that happened and talked about ways to mitigate it and were largely ignored,” he said.

“By including dermatologists and key stakeholders in these discussions, as we move forward with changes to improve this program, we can make sure that it’s patient-centered.”

IPMG did not address the specific complaints about the working relationship with the AADA workgroup at the meeting.
 

Monthly attestation for counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Dr. Barbieri said the monthly requirement to counsel patients who cannot get pregnant and document that counseling unfairly burdens clinicians and patients. “We’re essentially asking patients to come in monthly just to tell them not to share their drugs [or] donate blood,” he said.

Ken Katz, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, was among the panel members voting not to continue the 19-day lockout.

“I think this places an unduly high burden physically and psychologically on our patients. It seems arbitrary,” he said. “Likely we will miss some pregnancies; we are missing some already. But the burden is not matched by the benefit.”

IPMG representative Dr. Wedin, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while an extension to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with the risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Dr. Wedin said.
 

Home pregnancy testing

The advisory groups were also tasked with discussing whether home pregnancy tests, allowed during the COVID-19 public health emergency, should continue to be allowed. Most committee members and those in the public hearing who spoke on the issue agreed that home tests should continue in an effort to increase access and decrease burden.

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst at the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” Dr. Crist said.

Dr. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
 

Workaround to avoid falsification

Advisory committee member Brian P. Green, DO, associate professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., spoke in support of home pregnancy tests.

“What we have people do for telemedicine is take the stick, write their name, write the date on it, and send a picture of that the same day as their visit,” he said. “That way we have the pregnancy test the same day. Allowing this to continue to happen at home is important. Bringing people in is burdensome and costly.”

Emmy Graber, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Boston, and a director of the American Acne and Rosacea Society (AARS), relayed an example of the burden for a patient using isotretinoin who lives 1.5 hours away from the dermatology office. She is able to meet the requirements of iPLEDGE only through telehealth.

Suggestions for improvement

At the end of the hearing, advisory committee members were asked to propose improvements to the iPLEDGE REMS program.

Dr. Green advocated for the addition of an iPLEDGE mobile app.

“Most people go to their phones rather than their computers, particularly teenagers and younger people,” he noted.

Advisory committee member Megha M. Tollefson, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric and adolescent medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., echoed the need for an iPLEDGE app.

The young patients getting isotretinoin “don’t respond to email, they don’t necessarily go onto web pages. If we’re going to be as effective as possible, it’s going to have to be through an app-based system.”

Dr. Tollefson said she would like to see patient counseling standardized through the app. “I think there’s a lot of variability in what counseling is given when it’s left to the individual prescriber or practice,” she said.
 

Exceptions for long-acting contraceptives?

Advisory committee member Abbey B. Berenson, MD, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, said that patients taking long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) may need to be considered differently when deciding the intervals for attestation or whether to have a lockout period.

“LARC methods’ rate of failure is extremely low,” she said. “While it is true, as it has been pointed out, that all methods can fail, when they’re over 99% effective, I think that we can treat those methods differently than we treat methods such as birth control pills or abstinence that fail far more often. That is one way we could minimize burden on the providers and the patients.”

She also suggested using members of the health care team other than physicians to complete counseling, such as a nurse or pharmacist.
 

Prescriptions for emergency contraception

Advisory committee member Sascha Dublin, MD, PhD, senior scientific investigator for Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle, said most patients taking the drug who can get pregnant should get a prescription for emergency contraception at the time of the first isotretinoin prescription.

“They don’t have to buy it, but to make it available at the very beginning sets the expectation that it would be good to have in your medicine cabinet, particularly if the [contraception] choice is abstinence or birth control pills.”

Dr. Dublin also called for better transparency surrounding the role of IPMG.

She said IPMG should be expected to collect data in a way that allows examination of health disparities, including by race and ethnicity and insurance status. Dr. Dublin added that she was concerned about the poor communication between dermatological societies and IPMG.

“The FDA should really require that IPMG hold periodic, regularly scheduled stakeholder forums,” she said. “There has to be a mechanism in place for IPMG to listen to those concerns in real time and respond.”

The advisory committees’ recommendations to the FDA are nonbinding, but the FDA generally follows the recommendations of advisory panels.

During 2 days of hearings on potential modifications to the isotretinoin iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), there was much agreement among dermatologists, industry representatives, and Food and Drug Administration representatives that provider and patient burdens persist after the chaotic rollout of the new REMS platform at the end of 2021.

On March 29, at the end of the FDA’s joint meeting of two advisory committees that addressed ways to improve the iPLEDGE program, most panelists voted to change the 19-day lockout period for patients who can become pregnant, and the requirement that every month, providers must document counseling of those who cannot get pregnant and are taking the drug for acne.

However, there was no consensus on whether there should be a lockout at all or for how long, and what an appropriate interval for counseling those who cannot get pregnant would be, if not monthly. Those voting on the questions repeatedly cited a lack of data to make well-informed decisions.

The meeting of the two panels, the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, was held March 28-29, to discuss proposed changes to iPLEDGE requirements, to minimize the program’s burden on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies – while maintaining safe use of the highly teratogenic drug.

Lockout based on outdated reasoning

John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatologist and epidemiologist, and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, speaking as deputy chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) iPLEDGE work group, described the burden of getting the drug to patients. He was not on the panel, but spoke during the open public hearing.

“Compared to other acne medications, the time it takes to successfully go from prescribed (isotretinoin) to when the patient actually has it in their hands is 5- to 10-fold higher,” he said.

Many don’t have a monthly cycle

But Dr. Barbieri said that reasoning is outdated.

“The current program’s focus on the menstrual cycle is really an antiquated approach,” he said. “Many patients do not have a monthly cycle due to medical conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome, or due to [certain kinds of] contraception.”

He added, “By removing this 19-day lockout and, really, the archaic timing around the menstrual cycle in general in this program, we can simplify the program, improve it, and better align it with the real-world biology of our patients.” He added that patients are often missing the 7-day window for picking up their prescriptions through no fault of their own. Speakers at the hearing also mentioned insurance hassles and ordering delays.


 

Communication with IPMG

Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and outgoing chair of the AADA iPLEDGE work group, cited difficulty in working with IPMG on modifications as another barrier. She also spoke during the open public hearing.

UCSF

“Despite many, many attempts to work with the IPMG, we are not aware of any organizational structure or key leaders to communicate with. Instead we have been given repeatedly a generic email address for trying to establish a working relationship and we believe this may explain the inaction of the IPMG since our proposals 4 years ago in 2019.”

Among those proposals, she said, were allowing telemedicine visits as part of the iPLEDGE REMS program and reducing counseling attestation to every 6 months instead of monthly for those who cannot become pregnant.

She pointed to the chaotic rollout of modifications to the iPLEDGE program on a new website at the end of 2021.

In 2021, she said, “despite 6 months of notification, no prescriber input was solicited before revamping the website. This lack of transparency and accountability has been a major hurdle in improving iPLEDGE.”

Dr. Barbieri called the rollout “a debacle” that could have been mitigated with communication with IPMG. “We warned about every issue that happened and talked about ways to mitigate it and were largely ignored,” he said.

“By including dermatologists and key stakeholders in these discussions, as we move forward with changes to improve this program, we can make sure that it’s patient-centered.”

IPMG did not address the specific complaints about the working relationship with the AADA workgroup at the meeting.
 

Monthly attestation for counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Dr. Barbieri said the monthly requirement to counsel patients who cannot get pregnant and document that counseling unfairly burdens clinicians and patients. “We’re essentially asking patients to come in monthly just to tell them not to share their drugs [or] donate blood,” he said.

Ken Katz, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, was among the panel members voting not to continue the 19-day lockout.

“I think this places an unduly high burden physically and psychologically on our patients. It seems arbitrary,” he said. “Likely we will miss some pregnancies; we are missing some already. But the burden is not matched by the benefit.”

IPMG representative Dr. Wedin, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while an extension to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with the risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Dr. Wedin said.
 

Home pregnancy testing

The advisory groups were also tasked with discussing whether home pregnancy tests, allowed during the COVID-19 public health emergency, should continue to be allowed. Most committee members and those in the public hearing who spoke on the issue agreed that home tests should continue in an effort to increase access and decrease burden.

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst at the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” Dr. Crist said.

Dr. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
 

Workaround to avoid falsification

Advisory committee member Brian P. Green, DO, associate professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., spoke in support of home pregnancy tests.

“What we have people do for telemedicine is take the stick, write their name, write the date on it, and send a picture of that the same day as their visit,” he said. “That way we have the pregnancy test the same day. Allowing this to continue to happen at home is important. Bringing people in is burdensome and costly.”

Emmy Graber, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Boston, and a director of the American Acne and Rosacea Society (AARS), relayed an example of the burden for a patient using isotretinoin who lives 1.5 hours away from the dermatology office. She is able to meet the requirements of iPLEDGE only through telehealth.

Suggestions for improvement

At the end of the hearing, advisory committee members were asked to propose improvements to the iPLEDGE REMS program.

Dr. Green advocated for the addition of an iPLEDGE mobile app.

“Most people go to their phones rather than their computers, particularly teenagers and younger people,” he noted.

Advisory committee member Megha M. Tollefson, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric and adolescent medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., echoed the need for an iPLEDGE app.

The young patients getting isotretinoin “don’t respond to email, they don’t necessarily go onto web pages. If we’re going to be as effective as possible, it’s going to have to be through an app-based system.”

Dr. Tollefson said she would like to see patient counseling standardized through the app. “I think there’s a lot of variability in what counseling is given when it’s left to the individual prescriber or practice,” she said.
 

Exceptions for long-acting contraceptives?

Advisory committee member Abbey B. Berenson, MD, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, said that patients taking long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) may need to be considered differently when deciding the intervals for attestation or whether to have a lockout period.

“LARC methods’ rate of failure is extremely low,” she said. “While it is true, as it has been pointed out, that all methods can fail, when they’re over 99% effective, I think that we can treat those methods differently than we treat methods such as birth control pills or abstinence that fail far more often. That is one way we could minimize burden on the providers and the patients.”

She also suggested using members of the health care team other than physicians to complete counseling, such as a nurse or pharmacist.
 

Prescriptions for emergency contraception

Advisory committee member Sascha Dublin, MD, PhD, senior scientific investigator for Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle, said most patients taking the drug who can get pregnant should get a prescription for emergency contraception at the time of the first isotretinoin prescription.

“They don’t have to buy it, but to make it available at the very beginning sets the expectation that it would be good to have in your medicine cabinet, particularly if the [contraception] choice is abstinence or birth control pills.”

Dr. Dublin also called for better transparency surrounding the role of IPMG.

She said IPMG should be expected to collect data in a way that allows examination of health disparities, including by race and ethnicity and insurance status. Dr. Dublin added that she was concerned about the poor communication between dermatological societies and IPMG.

“The FDA should really require that IPMG hold periodic, regularly scheduled stakeholder forums,” she said. “There has to be a mechanism in place for IPMG to listen to those concerns in real time and respond.”

The advisory committees’ recommendations to the FDA are nonbinding, but the FDA generally follows the recommendations of advisory panels.

During 2 days of hearings on potential modifications to the isotretinoin iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), there was much agreement among dermatologists, industry representatives, and Food and Drug Administration representatives that provider and patient burdens persist after the chaotic rollout of the new REMS platform at the end of 2021.

On March 29, at the end of the FDA’s joint meeting of two advisory committees that addressed ways to improve the iPLEDGE program, most panelists voted to change the 19-day lockout period for patients who can become pregnant, and the requirement that every month, providers must document counseling of those who cannot get pregnant and are taking the drug for acne.

However, there was no consensus on whether there should be a lockout at all or for how long, and what an appropriate interval for counseling those who cannot get pregnant would be, if not monthly. Those voting on the questions repeatedly cited a lack of data to make well-informed decisions.

The meeting of the two panels, the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, was held March 28-29, to discuss proposed changes to iPLEDGE requirements, to minimize the program’s burden on patients, prescribers, and pharmacies – while maintaining safe use of the highly teratogenic drug.

Lockout based on outdated reasoning

John S. Barbieri, MD, a dermatologist and epidemiologist, and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, speaking as deputy chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) iPLEDGE work group, described the burden of getting the drug to patients. He was not on the panel, but spoke during the open public hearing.

“Compared to other acne medications, the time it takes to successfully go from prescribed (isotretinoin) to when the patient actually has it in their hands is 5- to 10-fold higher,” he said.

Many don’t have a monthly cycle

But Dr. Barbieri said that reasoning is outdated.

“The current program’s focus on the menstrual cycle is really an antiquated approach,” he said. “Many patients do not have a monthly cycle due to medical conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome, or due to [certain kinds of] contraception.”

He added, “By removing this 19-day lockout and, really, the archaic timing around the menstrual cycle in general in this program, we can simplify the program, improve it, and better align it with the real-world biology of our patients.” He added that patients are often missing the 7-day window for picking up their prescriptions through no fault of their own. Speakers at the hearing also mentioned insurance hassles and ordering delays.


 

Communication with IPMG

Ilona Frieden, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and outgoing chair of the AADA iPLEDGE work group, cited difficulty in working with IPMG on modifications as another barrier. She also spoke during the open public hearing.

UCSF

“Despite many, many attempts to work with the IPMG, we are not aware of any organizational structure or key leaders to communicate with. Instead we have been given repeatedly a generic email address for trying to establish a working relationship and we believe this may explain the inaction of the IPMG since our proposals 4 years ago in 2019.”

Among those proposals, she said, were allowing telemedicine visits as part of the iPLEDGE REMS program and reducing counseling attestation to every 6 months instead of monthly for those who cannot become pregnant.

She pointed to the chaotic rollout of modifications to the iPLEDGE program on a new website at the end of 2021.

In 2021, she said, “despite 6 months of notification, no prescriber input was solicited before revamping the website. This lack of transparency and accountability has been a major hurdle in improving iPLEDGE.”

Dr. Barbieri called the rollout “a debacle” that could have been mitigated with communication with IPMG. “We warned about every issue that happened and talked about ways to mitigate it and were largely ignored,” he said.

“By including dermatologists and key stakeholders in these discussions, as we move forward with changes to improve this program, we can make sure that it’s patient-centered.”

IPMG did not address the specific complaints about the working relationship with the AADA workgroup at the meeting.
 

Monthly attestation for counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Dr. Barbieri said the monthly requirement to counsel patients who cannot get pregnant and document that counseling unfairly burdens clinicians and patients. “We’re essentially asking patients to come in monthly just to tell them not to share their drugs [or] donate blood,” he said.

Ken Katz, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco, was among the panel members voting not to continue the 19-day lockout.

“I think this places an unduly high burden physically and psychologically on our patients. It seems arbitrary,” he said. “Likely we will miss some pregnancies; we are missing some already. But the burden is not matched by the benefit.”

IPMG representative Dr. Wedin, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while an extension to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with the risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Dr. Wedin said.
 

Home pregnancy testing

The advisory groups were also tasked with discussing whether home pregnancy tests, allowed during the COVID-19 public health emergency, should continue to be allowed. Most committee members and those in the public hearing who spoke on the issue agreed that home tests should continue in an effort to increase access and decrease burden.

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst at the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” Dr. Crist said.

Dr. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
 

Workaround to avoid falsification

Advisory committee member Brian P. Green, DO, associate professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, Pa., spoke in support of home pregnancy tests.

“What we have people do for telemedicine is take the stick, write their name, write the date on it, and send a picture of that the same day as their visit,” he said. “That way we have the pregnancy test the same day. Allowing this to continue to happen at home is important. Bringing people in is burdensome and costly.”

Emmy Graber, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Boston, and a director of the American Acne and Rosacea Society (AARS), relayed an example of the burden for a patient using isotretinoin who lives 1.5 hours away from the dermatology office. She is able to meet the requirements of iPLEDGE only through telehealth.

Suggestions for improvement

At the end of the hearing, advisory committee members were asked to propose improvements to the iPLEDGE REMS program.

Dr. Green advocated for the addition of an iPLEDGE mobile app.

“Most people go to their phones rather than their computers, particularly teenagers and younger people,” he noted.

Advisory committee member Megha M. Tollefson, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric and adolescent medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., echoed the need for an iPLEDGE app.

The young patients getting isotretinoin “don’t respond to email, they don’t necessarily go onto web pages. If we’re going to be as effective as possible, it’s going to have to be through an app-based system.”

Dr. Tollefson said she would like to see patient counseling standardized through the app. “I think there’s a lot of variability in what counseling is given when it’s left to the individual prescriber or practice,” she said.
 

Exceptions for long-acting contraceptives?

Advisory committee member Abbey B. Berenson, MD, PhD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, said that patients taking long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) may need to be considered differently when deciding the intervals for attestation or whether to have a lockout period.

“LARC methods’ rate of failure is extremely low,” she said. “While it is true, as it has been pointed out, that all methods can fail, when they’re over 99% effective, I think that we can treat those methods differently than we treat methods such as birth control pills or abstinence that fail far more often. That is one way we could minimize burden on the providers and the patients.”

She also suggested using members of the health care team other than physicians to complete counseling, such as a nurse or pharmacist.
 

Prescriptions for emergency contraception

Advisory committee member Sascha Dublin, MD, PhD, senior scientific investigator for Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle, said most patients taking the drug who can get pregnant should get a prescription for emergency contraception at the time of the first isotretinoin prescription.

“They don’t have to buy it, but to make it available at the very beginning sets the expectation that it would be good to have in your medicine cabinet, particularly if the [contraception] choice is abstinence or birth control pills.”

Dr. Dublin also called for better transparency surrounding the role of IPMG.

She said IPMG should be expected to collect data in a way that allows examination of health disparities, including by race and ethnicity and insurance status. Dr. Dublin added that she was concerned about the poor communication between dermatological societies and IPMG.

“The FDA should really require that IPMG hold periodic, regularly scheduled stakeholder forums,” she said. “There has to be a mechanism in place for IPMG to listen to those concerns in real time and respond.”

The advisory committees’ recommendations to the FDA are nonbinding, but the FDA generally follows the recommendations of advisory panels.

In an analysis of randomized trials, the Mediterranean diet and low-fat diets were linked to reduced risks of all-cause mortality and nonfatal MI over 3 years in adults at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), while the Mediterranean diet also showed lower risk of stroke.

Five other popular diets appeared to have little or no benefit with regard to these outcomes.

“These findings with data presentations are extremely important for patients who are skeptical about the desirability of diet change,” wrote the authors, led by Giorgio Karam, a medical student at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

The results were published online in The BMJ.

Dietary guidelines recommend various diets along with physical activity or other cointerventions for adults at increased CVD risk, but they are often based on low-certainty evidence from nonrandomized studies and on surrogate outcomes.

Several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with mortality and major CV outcomes have reported benefits of some dietary programs, but those studies did not use network meta-analysis to give absolute estimates and certainty of estimates for adults at intermediate and high risk, the authors noted.

For this study, Mr. Karam and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis in which they compared the effects of seven popular structured diets on mortality and CVD events for adults with CVD or CVD risk factors.

The seven diet plans were the Mediterranean, low fat, very low fat, modified fat, combined low fat and low sodium, Ornish, and Pritikin diets. Data for the analysis came from 40 randomized controlled trials that involved 35,548 participants who were followed for an average of 3 years.

There was evidence of “moderate” certainty that the Mediterranean diet was superior to minimal intervention for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.72), CV mortality (OR, 0.55), stroke (OR, 0.65), and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.48).

On an absolute basis (per 1,000 over 5 years), the Mediterranean diet let to 17 fewer deaths from any cause, 13 fewer CV deaths, seven fewer strokes, and 17 fewer nonfatal MIs.

There was evidence of moderate certainty that a low-fat diet was superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.84; nine fewer deaths per 1,000) and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.77; seven fewer deaths per 1,000). The low-fat diet had little to no benefit with regard to stroke reduction.

The Mediterranean diet was not “convincingly” superior to a low-fat diet for mortality or nonfatal MI, the authors noted.

The absolute effects for the Mediterranean and low-fat diets were more pronounced in adults at high CVD risk. With the Mediterranean diet, there were 36 fewer all-cause deaths and 39 fewer CV deaths per 1,000 over 5 years.

The five other dietary programs generally had “little or no benefit” compared with minimal intervention. The evidence was of low to moderate certainty.

The studies did not provide enough data to gauge the impact of the diets on angina, heart failure, peripheral vascular events, and atrial fibrillation.

The researchers say that strengths of their analysis include a comprehensive review and thorough literature search and a rigorous assessment of study bias. In addition, the researchers adhered to recognized GRADE methods for assessing the certainty of estimates.

Limitations of their work include not being able to measure adherence to dietary programs and the possibility that some of the benefits may have been due to other factors, such as drug treatment and support for quitting smoking.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an analysis of randomized trials, the Mediterranean diet and low-fat diets were linked to reduced risks of all-cause mortality and nonfatal MI over 3 years in adults at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), while the Mediterranean diet also showed lower risk of stroke.

Five other popular diets appeared to have little or no benefit with regard to these outcomes.

“These findings with data presentations are extremely important for patients who are skeptical about the desirability of diet change,” wrote the authors, led by Giorgio Karam, a medical student at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

The results were published online in The BMJ.

Dietary guidelines recommend various diets along with physical activity or other cointerventions for adults at increased CVD risk, but they are often based on low-certainty evidence from nonrandomized studies and on surrogate outcomes.

Several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with mortality and major CV outcomes have reported benefits of some dietary programs, but those studies did not use network meta-analysis to give absolute estimates and certainty of estimates for adults at intermediate and high risk, the authors noted.

For this study, Mr. Karam and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis in which they compared the effects of seven popular structured diets on mortality and CVD events for adults with CVD or CVD risk factors.

The seven diet plans were the Mediterranean, low fat, very low fat, modified fat, combined low fat and low sodium, Ornish, and Pritikin diets. Data for the analysis came from 40 randomized controlled trials that involved 35,548 participants who were followed for an average of 3 years.

There was evidence of “moderate” certainty that the Mediterranean diet was superior to minimal intervention for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.72), CV mortality (OR, 0.55), stroke (OR, 0.65), and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.48).

On an absolute basis (per 1,000 over 5 years), the Mediterranean diet let to 17 fewer deaths from any cause, 13 fewer CV deaths, seven fewer strokes, and 17 fewer nonfatal MIs.

There was evidence of moderate certainty that a low-fat diet was superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.84; nine fewer deaths per 1,000) and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.77; seven fewer deaths per 1,000). The low-fat diet had little to no benefit with regard to stroke reduction.

The Mediterranean diet was not “convincingly” superior to a low-fat diet for mortality or nonfatal MI, the authors noted.

The absolute effects for the Mediterranean and low-fat diets were more pronounced in adults at high CVD risk. With the Mediterranean diet, there were 36 fewer all-cause deaths and 39 fewer CV deaths per 1,000 over 5 years.

The five other dietary programs generally had “little or no benefit” compared with minimal intervention. The evidence was of low to moderate certainty.

The studies did not provide enough data to gauge the impact of the diets on angina, heart failure, peripheral vascular events, and atrial fibrillation.

The researchers say that strengths of their analysis include a comprehensive review and thorough literature search and a rigorous assessment of study bias. In addition, the researchers adhered to recognized GRADE methods for assessing the certainty of estimates.

Limitations of their work include not being able to measure adherence to dietary programs and the possibility that some of the benefits may have been due to other factors, such as drug treatment and support for quitting smoking.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an analysis of randomized trials, the Mediterranean diet and low-fat diets were linked to reduced risks of all-cause mortality and nonfatal MI over 3 years in adults at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), while the Mediterranean diet also showed lower risk of stroke.

Five other popular diets appeared to have little or no benefit with regard to these outcomes.

“These findings with data presentations are extremely important for patients who are skeptical about the desirability of diet change,” wrote the authors, led by Giorgio Karam, a medical student at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

The results were published online in The BMJ.

Dietary guidelines recommend various diets along with physical activity or other cointerventions for adults at increased CVD risk, but they are often based on low-certainty evidence from nonrandomized studies and on surrogate outcomes.

Several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with mortality and major CV outcomes have reported benefits of some dietary programs, but those studies did not use network meta-analysis to give absolute estimates and certainty of estimates for adults at intermediate and high risk, the authors noted.

For this study, Mr. Karam and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis in which they compared the effects of seven popular structured diets on mortality and CVD events for adults with CVD or CVD risk factors.

The seven diet plans were the Mediterranean, low fat, very low fat, modified fat, combined low fat and low sodium, Ornish, and Pritikin diets. Data for the analysis came from 40 randomized controlled trials that involved 35,548 participants who were followed for an average of 3 years.

There was evidence of “moderate” certainty that the Mediterranean diet was superior to minimal intervention for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.72), CV mortality (OR, 0.55), stroke (OR, 0.65), and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.48).

On an absolute basis (per 1,000 over 5 years), the Mediterranean diet let to 17 fewer deaths from any cause, 13 fewer CV deaths, seven fewer strokes, and 17 fewer nonfatal MIs.

There was evidence of moderate certainty that a low-fat diet was superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.84; nine fewer deaths per 1,000) and nonfatal MI (OR, 0.77; seven fewer deaths per 1,000). The low-fat diet had little to no benefit with regard to stroke reduction.

The Mediterranean diet was not “convincingly” superior to a low-fat diet for mortality or nonfatal MI, the authors noted.

The absolute effects for the Mediterranean and low-fat diets were more pronounced in adults at high CVD risk. With the Mediterranean diet, there were 36 fewer all-cause deaths and 39 fewer CV deaths per 1,000 over 5 years.

The five other dietary programs generally had “little or no benefit” compared with minimal intervention. The evidence was of low to moderate certainty.

The studies did not provide enough data to gauge the impact of the diets on angina, heart failure, peripheral vascular events, and atrial fibrillation.

The researchers say that strengths of their analysis include a comprehensive review and thorough literature search and a rigorous assessment of study bias. In addition, the researchers adhered to recognized GRADE methods for assessing the certainty of estimates.

Limitations of their work include not being able to measure adherence to dietary programs and the possibility that some of the benefits may have been due to other factors, such as drug treatment and support for quitting smoking.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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