Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.

The health care system as a whole as well as palliative care teams, have been challenged by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”¹ They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.¹ However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”²

The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.³ However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.⁴ The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,⁵ but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.^6,7

A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.⁶
 

Increasing need for palliative care

One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.

As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
 

Value of palliative care

The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.

Well-being of the workforce

The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,⁸ found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.

Telehealth

A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.⁹

Barriers to implementation

Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.⁵

• Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
• Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
• Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
• COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
• Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.

Takeaways

The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.^10,11

Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.

References

1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care

2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.

3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.

4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.

5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.

6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey

7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic

8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.

9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.

10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).

11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.

As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.

The health care system as a whole as well as palliative care teams, have been challenged by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”¹ They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.¹ However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”²

The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.³ However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.⁴ The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,⁵ but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.^6,7

A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.⁶
 

Increasing need for palliative care

One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.

As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
 

Value of palliative care

The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.

Well-being of the workforce

The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,⁸ found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.

Telehealth

A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.⁹

Barriers to implementation

Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.⁵

• Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
• Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
• Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
• COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
• Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.

Takeaways

The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.^10,11

Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.

References

1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care

2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.

3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.

4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.

5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.

6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey

7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic

8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.

9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.

10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).

11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.

As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.

The health care system as a whole as well as palliative care teams, have been challenged by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”¹ They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.¹ However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”²

The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.³ However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.⁴ The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,⁵ but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.^6,7

A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.⁶
 

Increasing need for palliative care

One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.

As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
 

Value of palliative care

The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.

Well-being of the workforce

The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,⁸ found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.

Telehealth

A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.⁹

Barriers to implementation

Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.⁵

• Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
• Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
• Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
• COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
• Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.

Takeaways

The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.^10,11

Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.

References

1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care

2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.

3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.

4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.

5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.

6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey

7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic

8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.

9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.

10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).

11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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