MDedge Neurology

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

Five risk factors might help pinpoint patients at risk of developing device-related thrombus (DRT), itself an important risk factor for cerebrovascular events, in patients with implants for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), new research suggests.

The identified independent predictors of DRT in the largest dedicated multicenter LAAO-DRT registry to date were presence of a hypercoagulability disorder, pericardial effusion, renal insufficiency, an implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and presence of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AFib).

“Unfortunately, most of them are not modifiable, like hypercoaguable disorders or nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. But we can avoid deep implants because that’s been associated with creating a little bit of a crater or valley where the clot can form,” senior author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, said in an interview.

But most important, and “really why we wanted to do this,” he said, is that “we want to give the patient a realistic prediction of adverse events for this procedure.”

LAAO has taken off in recent years for preventing thrombus formation and stroke in patients with AFib. Predicting DRT is a priority for the LAAO field, the authors note, especially given its expansion to younger, lower-risk patients and the increasing procedural volumes.

“This is a problem, DRT, that’s been discussed a lot because this is a preventative procedure,” observed Dr. Alkhouli, professor of medicine at Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

“The actual stroke risk every year – even if you don’t take any blood thinner and you have a CHADsVASc score of 9, the highest – is 11%. So if the chance of having thrombus is close, then that’s not a good tradeoff.”

Previous studies have also identified implantation depth and nonparoxysmal AFib as risk factors for DRT. But most of them have been small, he noted, with one of the largest reporting 65 DRTs in four prospective trials.

To cast a wider net, the investigators, led by Trevor Simard, MD, also from the Mayo Clinic, invited more than 50 international sites to contribute data to the registry. Of these, 37 centers reported on 237 DRTs and 474 device-matched control subjects from the same site.

Three-fourths of patients received a first-generation Watchman or a FLEX device (Boston Scientific).

Medical regimens were similar between the DRT and control cohorts at discharge after LAA closure. Most patients were managed with single (36.3%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (26.2%) at the time of DRT diagnosis.

As reported July 19 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the timing of DRT development varied widely, with 24.9% appearing in the first 45 days, 38.8% between days 45 and 180, 16.0% between days 180 to 365, and 20.3% beyond 1 year. At last known follow-up, one-quarter of patients had DRT.

The odds ratios for DRT associated with the five identified risk factors were:

• 17.50 (95% confidence interval, 3.39-90.45) for hypercoagulability disorder
• 13.45 (95% CI, 1.46-123.52) for pericardial effusion
• 4.02 (95% CI, 1.22-13.25) for renal insufficiency
• 2.41 (95% CI, 1.57-3.69) for implantation depth >10 mm
• 1.90 (95% CI, 1.22-2.97) for nonparoxysmal AFib

The risk for a composite of death, ischemic stroke, and systemic embolization was twofold higher in the DRT cohort than in the control cohort (29.5% vs. 14.4%; hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.56) and driven by a higher rate of ischemic stroke (16.9% vs. 3.6%; HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.35-9.00).

The incidence of bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage, however, was similar in the DRT and control cohorts.

One of the surprises of the study was that medications prescribed in the short term after LAA closure were not associated with DRT, Dr. Alkhouli said. A previous meta-analysis of 66 studies by the investigators also found that antithrombotic regimen did not explain the heterogeneity of DRT formation.

“I think we’ll have to take that with a grain of salt, because there’s so many variations in the practice, and this is observational data. But that, in my mind, brings up a mechanistic issue,” he said.

It’s often recommended “that we should put patients on blood thinners for 3 months or 6 weeks, or whatever it is, to decrease the chance of thrombus, assuming the patients will have a normal endothelialization of the device,” Dr. Alkhouli said.

“Well, we know that’s not the reality,” he continued. “We know many patients don’t endothelialize, and, even if some patients do, there may be some endothelial damage. So I think the whole mechanism of prescribing a little bit of a blood thinner to avoid that risk may be missing the point. It’s a bit more complex than that, evidenced also by the fact that three-fourths of all the DRTs happened after 45 days, when patients are typically not taking a blood thinner.”

Based on the five independent risk factors, the investigators created a clinical DRT risk score that assigned 1 point for renal insufficiency, implantation depth greater than 10 mm from the pulmonary ridge, and nonparoxysmal AFib; and 4 points for iatrogenic pericardial effusion and for hypercoagulability disorder. Low risk was categorized as 1 point and high risk as 2 or more points.

The presence of one major risk factor or two minor risk factors, for example, led to a 2.1-fold increased risk for DRT, compared with those with no DRT risk factors.

The risk score will require validation in a prospective cohort but is “a step forward in addressing DRT” and triaging patients, Dr. Alkhouli said. The findings highlight the need to avoid deep device implantation and the importance of shared decision-making with patients, especially with those at high risk.

“And third, which is most important, I think, in my mind, is that it tells us not to put a blind eye to this topic and just say with improved devices it will go away,” he said. “That’s a bit unrealistic.”

In an accompanying editorial, Oussama Wazni, MD, Walid Saliba, MD, and Ayman A. Hussein, MD, all from the Cleveland Clinic, write that “the study sheds light on this yet unresolved issue, and the observations may help with risk stratification and optimization of procedural techniques.”

Whereas many of the nonmodifiable risk factors are helpful in shared decision-making decisions, they continue, “knowledge of these risk factors may not preclude implantation in patients who are otherwise at risk of both stroke off anticoagulation and bleeding on anticoagulation.”

Dr. Wazni and colleagues acknowledge that the small number of events in the study limits statistical power for definitive conclusions and say that further studies are needed to clarify the natural history of DRTs and their management, resolution, and impact on cardiovascular events.

Practitioners should also continue to cautiously assess for LAAO clinical indications for implant, according to the editorialists, who point out that the regulatory approval language in the United States was “flexible and nonspecific.”

“As the field grows wider, enhancing LAAO safety with optimal design, implantation, and periprocedural management is critically important, yet the main focus should remain on optimal patient selection for the purpose of achieving safe and successful outcomes,” the editorialists conclude.

Dr. Alkhouli has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Hussein have received research grant support from Boston Scientific. Dr. Wazni and Dr. Saliba have been consultants for Boston Scientific.

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

A single high dose of the antifungal agent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB; AmBisome, Gilead Sciences), with a background regimen of flucytosine and fluconazole, is non-inferior and significantly safer in preventing mortality in HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis than a conventional seven-day regimen that is the current standard of care, according to a new study.

The much-anticipated results suggest an important alternative amid controversy over the drug’s cost and availability.

“The results of this phase 3 [AMBITION-cm] trial make it clear that this approach is just as good as the current World Health Organization-recommended first-line treatment in preventing death,” first author David S. Lawrence, MD, AMBITION study lead clinician, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“The fact that this was the largest ever trial [on HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis] conducted to date… gives us a high level of confidence in these results,” he said of the study, which was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

“We believe that this should become the WHO-recommended first-line regimen,” he emphasized.

In commenting on the study, Meg Doherty, MD, PhD, director of global HIV, hepatitis, and STI programs at WHO, agreed that a shorter regimen could be vital, particularly in settings with limited resources.

“The results from the AMBITION trial are important for low- and middle-income countries, where the cost and complexity of implementing the current standard seven-day course of L-ambisome or cryptococcal meningitis treatment can put this out of reach for many,” she told this news organization.

“Simplification that maintains the highest quality of care is an important component of the public health approach for HIV treatment and care,” she added.

Dr. Doherty could not comment on any possible changes to WHO recommendations, which are formulated by an independent guideline development group, but a spokesperson said that “WHO is preparing an updated review of the evidence for treating cryptococcal disease as a first step towards updating guidance.”

Conventional treatment toxicities

Cryptococcal meningitis is a leading cause of death in HIV, and the conventional treatment of amphotericin B deoxycholate, though less expensive than L-AmB, is more toxic, causing anemia, renal impairment, and electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Lawrence explained

Having previously shown a single 10 mg/kg dose of L-AmB to be as effective as the longer regimen of 14 daily doses in terms of clearing cryptococcus from the cerebrospinal fluid, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues conducted the phase 3 AMBITION-Cm trial to evaluate the effect on mortality, enrolling 844 patients in Botswana, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe who were HIV-positive and had a first episode of cryptococcal meningitis.

Participants in the study were randomized to treatment either with single, high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg), combined with 14 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day and fluconazole 1,200 mg/day or to a control group receiving 7 daily doses of AmB deoxycholate (1 mg/kg) plus 7 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day, followed by 7 days of fluconazole 1,200 mg/day.

All patients were also provided with consolidation therapy of fluconazole 800 mg/day for eight weeks. Of the patients, 60.2% were male, their median age was 37, and their median CD4 count was 27 cells/mm³.

For the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis of 814 patients, the 10-week mortality rate in the single-dose L-AmB group was 24.82% (101 of 407) and 28.75% (117 of 407) in the control arm, for a difference (-3.93%) that was well within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

As expected, the safety measures were significantly improved with the single-dose of L-AmB: Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events within the initial 21 days of treatment in the single-dose L-AmB group were 50% versus 62.3% in the control group, and severe anemia occurred in just 13% of single-dose L-AmB participants, compared with 41% in the AmB deoxycholate control arm (both P < .001), Dr. Lawrence reported.

Furthermore, the average decline in hemoglobin over the first week was 0.3 g/dL in the single-dose L-AmB arm and 1.9 g/dL in the control arm, resulting in the need for more blood transfusions in the control arm (P < .001).

The impact on kidney function was also worse in the higher dose arm, with an average increase in creatinine over the first week of 20.2% in the L-AmB group versus 49.7% in the control group, while hypokalemia and thrombophlebitis were also more common with the higher dose group, Dr. Lawrence noted.

In the adjusted analysis, the single-dose L-AmB measures were in fact superior after adjusting for factors including research site, age, sex, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale, CD4 count, CSF cryptococcal colony-forming units/mL, antiretroviral therapy status, hemoglobin, and CSF opening pressure.

Mortality rate still high – but significantly reduced

The mortality rate of about 25% in the study after the treatment is still significantly higher than typically seen in high-income countries such as the United States, where HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis is less common and associated with a mortality of roughly 10-15%, Dr. Lawrence noted.

The rate is nevertheless among the lowest mortality rates ever reported within a clinical trial conducted in resource-limited settings, he explained.

“These results are a step in the right direction and a significant improvement on the rates of 40% to 45% reported with two-week L-AmB-based regimens in African settings,” Dr. Lawrence underscored.

Higher cost — but potentially more cost-effective

With a higher cost than AmB deoxycholate, L-AmB’s utilization in resource-limited settings has been a challenge: A single vial of L-AmB ranges from $80 to $200, according to some reports, and while 14-day dosing requires as many as 42 vials of L-AmB, even a 7-day regimen still requires 21 vials.

In comparison, the single-dose L-AmB regimen only requires an average of 10 to 11 vials per patient, but the regimen’s higher safety could translate to far greater cost savings, Dr. Lawrence explained.

“While the AmBisome regimen is technically more expensive in terms of drugs, we expect it to be cost-effective or possibly cost-saving when taking into account that there is less toxicity, fewer blood tests, less transfusions, etc., and possibly shorter duration of hospital admission,” he said.

Cost, supply controversy: ‘Black fungus’-related demand

The drug’s cost — as well as supply issues — have meanwhile become even more of a problem as L-AmB has unexpectedly also become urgently needed in the treatment of mucormycosis in India and Nepal, where the otherwise rare fungal disease, commonly known as “black fungus,” has been increasingly affecting COVID-19 patients and survivors.

Gilead had previously announced in 2018 its intention to make L-AmB more widely available at a price of $16.25 per vial, but “implementation of this has been slow,” Dr. Lawrence said.

As a result, Gilead is facing heightened pressure to implement the lower prices – and also improve substantial supply issues, with Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and dozens of other global organizations issuing an open letter to Gilead and partner Viatris in June calling for immediate action to implement the lower price and improve supply of L-AmB.

In a company statement, Gilead responded, detailing its “commit[ment] to the non-profit pricing for the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis” and to efforts to improve the public health crisis in India.

For their part, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues are working on producing more research on the issue.

“We hope that the conclusive results of the AMBITION trial will give a much needed push to implement this program,” he said.

“We are also currently completing the cost-effectiveness analysis of the study, which we hope will provide additional evidence to support widespread implementation of this regimen and highlight further the urgent need to broaden access to AmBisome and flucytosine,” he said.

The trial was supported by a grant through the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) (TRIA2015-1092), and the Wellcome Trust / Medical Research Council (UK)/UKAID Joint Global Health Trials (MR/P006922/1. The AmBisome was donated by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Lawrence had no disclosures to report.

A single high dose of the antifungal agent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB; AmBisome, Gilead Sciences), with a background regimen of flucytosine and fluconazole, is non-inferior and significantly safer in preventing mortality in HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis than a conventional seven-day regimen that is the current standard of care, according to a new study.

The much-anticipated results suggest an important alternative amid controversy over the drug’s cost and availability.

“The results of this phase 3 [AMBITION-cm] trial make it clear that this approach is just as good as the current World Health Organization-recommended first-line treatment in preventing death,” first author David S. Lawrence, MD, AMBITION study lead clinician, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“The fact that this was the largest ever trial [on HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis] conducted to date… gives us a high level of confidence in these results,” he said of the study, which was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

“We believe that this should become the WHO-recommended first-line regimen,” he emphasized.

In commenting on the study, Meg Doherty, MD, PhD, director of global HIV, hepatitis, and STI programs at WHO, agreed that a shorter regimen could be vital, particularly in settings with limited resources.

“The results from the AMBITION trial are important for low- and middle-income countries, where the cost and complexity of implementing the current standard seven-day course of L-ambisome or cryptococcal meningitis treatment can put this out of reach for many,” she told this news organization.

“Simplification that maintains the highest quality of care is an important component of the public health approach for HIV treatment and care,” she added.

Dr. Doherty could not comment on any possible changes to WHO recommendations, which are formulated by an independent guideline development group, but a spokesperson said that “WHO is preparing an updated review of the evidence for treating cryptococcal disease as a first step towards updating guidance.”

Conventional treatment toxicities

Cryptococcal meningitis is a leading cause of death in HIV, and the conventional treatment of amphotericin B deoxycholate, though less expensive than L-AmB, is more toxic, causing anemia, renal impairment, and electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Lawrence explained

Having previously shown a single 10 mg/kg dose of L-AmB to be as effective as the longer regimen of 14 daily doses in terms of clearing cryptococcus from the cerebrospinal fluid, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues conducted the phase 3 AMBITION-Cm trial to evaluate the effect on mortality, enrolling 844 patients in Botswana, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe who were HIV-positive and had a first episode of cryptococcal meningitis.

Participants in the study were randomized to treatment either with single, high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg), combined with 14 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day and fluconazole 1,200 mg/day or to a control group receiving 7 daily doses of AmB deoxycholate (1 mg/kg) plus 7 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day, followed by 7 days of fluconazole 1,200 mg/day.

All patients were also provided with consolidation therapy of fluconazole 800 mg/day for eight weeks. Of the patients, 60.2% were male, their median age was 37, and their median CD4 count was 27 cells/mm³.

For the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis of 814 patients, the 10-week mortality rate in the single-dose L-AmB group was 24.82% (101 of 407) and 28.75% (117 of 407) in the control arm, for a difference (-3.93%) that was well within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

As expected, the safety measures were significantly improved with the single-dose of L-AmB: Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events within the initial 21 days of treatment in the single-dose L-AmB group were 50% versus 62.3% in the control group, and severe anemia occurred in just 13% of single-dose L-AmB participants, compared with 41% in the AmB deoxycholate control arm (both P < .001), Dr. Lawrence reported.

Furthermore, the average decline in hemoglobin over the first week was 0.3 g/dL in the single-dose L-AmB arm and 1.9 g/dL in the control arm, resulting in the need for more blood transfusions in the control arm (P < .001).

The impact on kidney function was also worse in the higher dose arm, with an average increase in creatinine over the first week of 20.2% in the L-AmB group versus 49.7% in the control group, while hypokalemia and thrombophlebitis were also more common with the higher dose group, Dr. Lawrence noted.

In the adjusted analysis, the single-dose L-AmB measures were in fact superior after adjusting for factors including research site, age, sex, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale, CD4 count, CSF cryptococcal colony-forming units/mL, antiretroviral therapy status, hemoglobin, and CSF opening pressure.

Mortality rate still high – but significantly reduced

The mortality rate of about 25% in the study after the treatment is still significantly higher than typically seen in high-income countries such as the United States, where HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis is less common and associated with a mortality of roughly 10-15%, Dr. Lawrence noted.

The rate is nevertheless among the lowest mortality rates ever reported within a clinical trial conducted in resource-limited settings, he explained.

“These results are a step in the right direction and a significant improvement on the rates of 40% to 45% reported with two-week L-AmB-based regimens in African settings,” Dr. Lawrence underscored.

Higher cost — but potentially more cost-effective

With a higher cost than AmB deoxycholate, L-AmB’s utilization in resource-limited settings has been a challenge: A single vial of L-AmB ranges from $80 to $200, according to some reports, and while 14-day dosing requires as many as 42 vials of L-AmB, even a 7-day regimen still requires 21 vials.

In comparison, the single-dose L-AmB regimen only requires an average of 10 to 11 vials per patient, but the regimen’s higher safety could translate to far greater cost savings, Dr. Lawrence explained.

“While the AmBisome regimen is technically more expensive in terms of drugs, we expect it to be cost-effective or possibly cost-saving when taking into account that there is less toxicity, fewer blood tests, less transfusions, etc., and possibly shorter duration of hospital admission,” he said.

Cost, supply controversy: ‘Black fungus’-related demand

The drug’s cost — as well as supply issues — have meanwhile become even more of a problem as L-AmB has unexpectedly also become urgently needed in the treatment of mucormycosis in India and Nepal, where the otherwise rare fungal disease, commonly known as “black fungus,” has been increasingly affecting COVID-19 patients and survivors.

Gilead had previously announced in 2018 its intention to make L-AmB more widely available at a price of $16.25 per vial, but “implementation of this has been slow,” Dr. Lawrence said.

As a result, Gilead is facing heightened pressure to implement the lower prices – and also improve substantial supply issues, with Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and dozens of other global organizations issuing an open letter to Gilead and partner Viatris in June calling for immediate action to implement the lower price and improve supply of L-AmB.

In a company statement, Gilead responded, detailing its “commit[ment] to the non-profit pricing for the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis” and to efforts to improve the public health crisis in India.

For their part, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues are working on producing more research on the issue.

“We hope that the conclusive results of the AMBITION trial will give a much needed push to implement this program,” he said.

“We are also currently completing the cost-effectiveness analysis of the study, which we hope will provide additional evidence to support widespread implementation of this regimen and highlight further the urgent need to broaden access to AmBisome and flucytosine,” he said.

The trial was supported by a grant through the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) (TRIA2015-1092), and the Wellcome Trust / Medical Research Council (UK)/UKAID Joint Global Health Trials (MR/P006922/1. The AmBisome was donated by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Lawrence had no disclosures to report.

A single high dose of the antifungal agent liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB; AmBisome, Gilead Sciences), with a background regimen of flucytosine and fluconazole, is non-inferior and significantly safer in preventing mortality in HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis than a conventional seven-day regimen that is the current standard of care, according to a new study.

The much-anticipated results suggest an important alternative amid controversy over the drug’s cost and availability.

“The results of this phase 3 [AMBITION-cm] trial make it clear that this approach is just as good as the current World Health Organization-recommended first-line treatment in preventing death,” first author David S. Lawrence, MD, AMBITION study lead clinician, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

“The fact that this was the largest ever trial [on HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis] conducted to date… gives us a high level of confidence in these results,” he said of the study, which was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the International AIDS Society.

“We believe that this should become the WHO-recommended first-line regimen,” he emphasized.

In commenting on the study, Meg Doherty, MD, PhD, director of global HIV, hepatitis, and STI programs at WHO, agreed that a shorter regimen could be vital, particularly in settings with limited resources.

“The results from the AMBITION trial are important for low- and middle-income countries, where the cost and complexity of implementing the current standard seven-day course of L-ambisome or cryptococcal meningitis treatment can put this out of reach for many,” she told this news organization.

“Simplification that maintains the highest quality of care is an important component of the public health approach for HIV treatment and care,” she added.

Dr. Doherty could not comment on any possible changes to WHO recommendations, which are formulated by an independent guideline development group, but a spokesperson said that “WHO is preparing an updated review of the evidence for treating cryptococcal disease as a first step towards updating guidance.”

Conventional treatment toxicities

Cryptococcal meningitis is a leading cause of death in HIV, and the conventional treatment of amphotericin B deoxycholate, though less expensive than L-AmB, is more toxic, causing anemia, renal impairment, and electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Lawrence explained

Having previously shown a single 10 mg/kg dose of L-AmB to be as effective as the longer regimen of 14 daily doses in terms of clearing cryptococcus from the cerebrospinal fluid, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues conducted the phase 3 AMBITION-Cm trial to evaluate the effect on mortality, enrolling 844 patients in Botswana, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe who were HIV-positive and had a first episode of cryptococcal meningitis.

Participants in the study were randomized to treatment either with single, high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg), combined with 14 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day and fluconazole 1,200 mg/day or to a control group receiving 7 daily doses of AmB deoxycholate (1 mg/kg) plus 7 days of flucytosine 100 mg/kg/day, followed by 7 days of fluconazole 1,200 mg/day.

All patients were also provided with consolidation therapy of fluconazole 800 mg/day for eight weeks. Of the patients, 60.2% were male, their median age was 37, and their median CD4 count was 27 cells/mm³.

For the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis of 814 patients, the 10-week mortality rate in the single-dose L-AmB group was 24.82% (101 of 407) and 28.75% (117 of 407) in the control arm, for a difference (-3.93%) that was well within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

As expected, the safety measures were significantly improved with the single-dose of L-AmB: Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events within the initial 21 days of treatment in the single-dose L-AmB group were 50% versus 62.3% in the control group, and severe anemia occurred in just 13% of single-dose L-AmB participants, compared with 41% in the AmB deoxycholate control arm (both P < .001), Dr. Lawrence reported.

Furthermore, the average decline in hemoglobin over the first week was 0.3 g/dL in the single-dose L-AmB arm and 1.9 g/dL in the control arm, resulting in the need for more blood transfusions in the control arm (P < .001).

The impact on kidney function was also worse in the higher dose arm, with an average increase in creatinine over the first week of 20.2% in the L-AmB group versus 49.7% in the control group, while hypokalemia and thrombophlebitis were also more common with the higher dose group, Dr. Lawrence noted.

In the adjusted analysis, the single-dose L-AmB measures were in fact superior after adjusting for factors including research site, age, sex, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale, CD4 count, CSF cryptococcal colony-forming units/mL, antiretroviral therapy status, hemoglobin, and CSF opening pressure.

Mortality rate still high – but significantly reduced

The mortality rate of about 25% in the study after the treatment is still significantly higher than typically seen in high-income countries such as the United States, where HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis is less common and associated with a mortality of roughly 10-15%, Dr. Lawrence noted.

The rate is nevertheless among the lowest mortality rates ever reported within a clinical trial conducted in resource-limited settings, he explained.

“These results are a step in the right direction and a significant improvement on the rates of 40% to 45% reported with two-week L-AmB-based regimens in African settings,” Dr. Lawrence underscored.

Higher cost — but potentially more cost-effective

With a higher cost than AmB deoxycholate, L-AmB’s utilization in resource-limited settings has been a challenge: A single vial of L-AmB ranges from $80 to $200, according to some reports, and while 14-day dosing requires as many as 42 vials of L-AmB, even a 7-day regimen still requires 21 vials.

In comparison, the single-dose L-AmB regimen only requires an average of 10 to 11 vials per patient, but the regimen’s higher safety could translate to far greater cost savings, Dr. Lawrence explained.

“While the AmBisome regimen is technically more expensive in terms of drugs, we expect it to be cost-effective or possibly cost-saving when taking into account that there is less toxicity, fewer blood tests, less transfusions, etc., and possibly shorter duration of hospital admission,” he said.

Cost, supply controversy: ‘Black fungus’-related demand

The drug’s cost — as well as supply issues — have meanwhile become even more of a problem as L-AmB has unexpectedly also become urgently needed in the treatment of mucormycosis in India and Nepal, where the otherwise rare fungal disease, commonly known as “black fungus,” has been increasingly affecting COVID-19 patients and survivors.

Gilead had previously announced in 2018 its intention to make L-AmB more widely available at a price of $16.25 per vial, but “implementation of this has been slow,” Dr. Lawrence said.

As a result, Gilead is facing heightened pressure to implement the lower prices – and also improve substantial supply issues, with Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and dozens of other global organizations issuing an open letter to Gilead and partner Viatris in June calling for immediate action to implement the lower price and improve supply of L-AmB.

In a company statement, Gilead responded, detailing its “commit[ment] to the non-profit pricing for the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis” and to efforts to improve the public health crisis in India.

For their part, Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues are working on producing more research on the issue.

“We hope that the conclusive results of the AMBITION trial will give a much needed push to implement this program,” he said.

“We are also currently completing the cost-effectiveness analysis of the study, which we hope will provide additional evidence to support widespread implementation of this regimen and highlight further the urgent need to broaden access to AmBisome and flucytosine,” he said.

The trial was supported by a grant through the European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) (TRIA2015-1092), and the Wellcome Trust / Medical Research Council (UK)/UKAID Joint Global Health Trials (MR/P006922/1. The AmBisome was donated by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Lawrence had no disclosures to report.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is specific for the treatment of chronic pain associated with PDN using the Nevro’s Senza System with 10 kHz stimulation. It is intended for patients whose pain is refractory to, or who can’t tolerate, conventional medical treatment. According to the company, there are currently about 2.3 million individuals with refractory PDN in the United States.

The 10 kHz device, called HFX, involves minimally invasive epidural implantation of the stimulator device, which delivers mild electrical impulses to the nerves to interrupt pain signal to the brain. Such spinal cord stimulation “is a straightforward, well-established treatment for chronic pain that’s been used for over 30 years,” according to the company, although this is the first approval of the modality specifically for PDN.

Asked to comment, Rodica Pop-Busui MD, PhD, the Larry D. Soderquist Professor in Diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that “the approval of the Nevro 10kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation to treat pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has the potential for benefit for many patients with diabetes and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

She noted that, “although there are several other pharmacological agents that currently carry the FDA approval for PDN, this is a condition that is notoriously difficult to treat, particularly when taking into account the actual number needed to treat with a specific agent to achieve a clinically meaningful pain reduction, as well as the spectrum of side effects and drug-drug interactions in a patient population that require many other additional agents to manage diabetes and comorbidities on a daily basis. Thus, this new therapeutic approach besides effective pain reduction has the additional benefit of bypassing drug interactions.” Dr. Pop-Busui was the lead author on the American Diabetes Association’s 2017 position statement on diabetic neuropathy.

She also cautioned, on the other hand, that “it is not very clear yet how easy it will be for all eligible patients to have access to this technology, what will be the actual costs, the insurance coverage, or the acceptance by patients across various sociodemographic backgrounds from the at-large clinical care. However, given the challenges we encounter to treat diabetic neuropathy and particularly the pain associated with it, it is quite encouraging to see that the tools available to help our patients are now broader.”

Both 6-and 12-month results show benefit

The FDA approval was based on 6-month data from a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Neurology.

Use of the 10-kHz SCS device was compared with conventional treatment alone in 216 patients with PDN refractory to gabapentinoids and at least one other analgesic class and lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

The primary endpoint, percentage of participants reporting 50% pain relief or more without worsening of baseline neurologic deficits at 3 months, was met by 5 of 94 (5%) patients in the conventional group, compared with 75 of 95 (79%) with the 10-kHz SCS plus conventional treatment (P < .001).

Infections requiring device explant occurred in two patients in the 10-kHz SCS group (2%).

At 12 months, those in the original SCS group plus 86% of subjects given the option to cross over from the conventional treatment group showed “clear and sustained” benefits of the 10-kHz SCS with regard to lower-limb pain, pain interference with daily living, sleep quality, and activity, Erika Petersen, MD, director of the section of functional and restorative neurosurgery at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock , reported at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the ADA.

Infection was the most common study-related adverse event, affecting 8 of 154 patients with the SCS implants (5.2%). Three resolved with conservative treatment and five (3.2%) required removal of the device.

The patients will be followed for a total of 24 months.

Commercial launch of HFX in the United States will begin immediately, the company said.

Dr. Pop-Busui has received consultant fees in the last 12 months from Averitas Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Petersen has financial relationships with Nevro, Medtronic, and several other neuromodulator makers.

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Dear big-tech AI company,

Perhaps artificial intelligence is “the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on,” as Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently said. If that’s true, can you please find a way to help us physicians?

I do understand, the benefits of artificial intelligence today are already profound and protean. Thanks to AI, I can translate Italian to English in real time in the same voice as an Italian speaker. I can be driven home autonomously by our Tesla. AI helps keep me safe by predicting crimes, on time by predicting traffic, and healthy by designing plant proteins that taste just like beef. I can even use AI to build a sprinkler to keep people off my new lawn.

In medicine, the AI news is so good that a frisson of excitement spreads vertically and horizontally across all health care. AI can detect pulmonary nodules, identify melanomas, develop new drugs – speed vaccine discovery! – and detect malignant cells on a biopsy slide. It can help predict who is going to crash in the ICU and recognize when someone is about to fall out of bed in the surgical unit. Even just this sampling of benefits proves how significant and impactful AI is in improving quality of life for patients and populations.

However, much of what I do every day in medicine cannot be solved with a neat quantitative analysis. The vast majority of my patients do not have a melanoma to be diagnosed or diabetic retinopathy to be scanned. What they want and need is time spent with me, their doctor. Although the schedule says I have 15 minutes (insufficient to begin with), patients are running late and are double booked, and I’ve loads of notes to type, medications to review, and messages to answer. Most days, I have only a fraction of 15 minutes to spend face to face with each patient.

Can AI please help us? How about reviewing the reams of data from my patient’s chart and presenting it to me succinctly? Rather than my tediously clicking through pathology reports, just summarize what skin cancers my patient has had and when. Rather than learning that my patient already failed Protopic a year ago, let me know that before I sign the order and promise: “Now, this ointment will work.” Even better, suggest alternative treatments that I might not be thinking of and which might do just the trick. Oh, and given my EMR has all the data required to determine billing codes, can you just drop that in for me when I’m done? Lastly, if the patient’s insurance is going to reject this claim or that medication, can AI please complete the authorization/paperwork/signed notary document/letter from U.S. senator that will be needed for it to be accepted?

I know this is possible. If we can blast a 70-year-old businessman into space on a private jet, surely you can invent an AI that gives us more time to spend with patients. Proposals postmarked by Dec. 31, 2021, please.


I’m sincerely yours,

Jeff Benabio, MD, MBA
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

Should a hospital or medical practice fulfill a patient’s request to be treated or cared for only by vaccinated health care providers?The answer is yes, in a perfect world. Patients should feel assured that their health care providers – clinicians and caregivers – are not exposing them to infectious diseases.But issues are being raised – subquestions that need to be answered to understand the current situation and assist health care employers in their decision-making:

• Must health care employers ensure that their employees are vaccinated?
• Can health care employers require that their employees be vaccinated?
• Do employees have any rights to refuse vaccination or to refuse to supply their employer with their vaccination status?
• Can a health care employer terminate an employee who refuses vaccination?
• Does a patient have a legal right to a vaccinated health care provider?

At present, federal policy says that employers may, but are not required to, insist that employees be vaccinated. The currently prevailing state case law says that hospitals and other employers can require staff to be vaccinated and can terminate employees who refuse vaccination. In June, a Texas court dismissed a case in which 117 employees sued a hospital for requiring that employees be vaccinated. More cases are pending in other states, and there may be differing decisions in other states and on appeal.

State laws enacted years ago also weigh in on employer obligations. In at least one state, Oregon, employers of health care providers may not require vaccination, even though other employers may. Other states have laws about what an employer may or may not require of an employee regarding vaccination, and some have introduced laws which are pending.

So, in most states, health care employers may, not must, require that employees be vaccinated. In most states, hospitals and medical practices may terminate employees who refuse vaccination. However, employers should research the laws of their own states before requiring vaccinations and before terminating employees who are not vaccinated.

The issue of employer mandates is complicated further by the practicality that, in some areas of the country, health care providers are in scarce supply. Employers don’t want to lose the providers they have.

And there are additional questions about how certain federal laws affect the situation. Federal law that may apply includes:

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation on approval of vaccines
• The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent
• Civil rights laws
• Patients’ rights

FDA. Some health care providers who refuse vaccination argue that employers have no legal right to require a vaccine that is not fully approved by the FDA. COVID-19 vaccinations have emergency use authorization – something less than full approval. Courts have not yet ruled on this issue.

ADA. Some attorneys believe that honoring a patient’s request to be attended only by a vaccinated health care provider can implicate the ADA. However, the ADA doesn’t protect healthy individuals who don’t want to be vaccinated. The ADA protects the person who, because of their disability, shouldn’t get the vaccination. If an employer mandates vaccination, the employer must, under the ADA, consider requests for exemptions from disabled individuals. However, even when an employee has a disability that may qualify the employee for an exemption to the vaccination requirement, an employer may argue that giving an exemption would be a direct threat to the safety of others; in that case, the ADA may require that the disabled employee and hospital work something out. A compromise might be that the unvaccinated disabled individual would not provide direct patient care or would wear a mask and maintain physical distance.

HIPAA. Some argue that federal privacy law enters into the discussion, maintaining that health care employers can’t disclose employees’ vaccination status under HIPAA. That is not true. Employers are not “covered entities” under HIPAA. It is health care providers who are precluded under HIPAA from disclosing a patient’s personal information. So, if an employer were to ask an employee’s health care provider about the employee’s vaccination status, the health care provider could disclose that status only if the employee consented to the disclosure. An employer may ask an employee for the employee’s proof of vaccination card. However, employers must not ask for unnecessary details that might reveal disability information protected by the ADA.

Civil rights law. Civil rights laws may protect certain individuals from employment consequences of refusing vaccination. Specifically, individuals with sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations are protected from retaliation by employers for refusing vaccination, under the Constitutional right of freedom of religion. The individual without sincerely held religious convictions against vaccinations and without a relevant disability doesn’t have legal remedies under civil rights laws.

Civil rights laws may apply if employers don’t apply their vaccination requirements to all employees equally. That is, employers can’t require vaccinations of some employees but not others.

Patients’ rights. Legal protections for patients who want a vaccinated health care provider are nowhere to be seen, at this time. It is unlikely that a single patient will be able to convince a hospital or medical practice to require that its staff be vaccinated. However, if a patient becomes infected with COVID-19 and can prove that the illness is causally related to interacting with an unvaccinated health care worker, the patient may have a case against the employer. The legal theory would be malpractice or negligence under informed consent law: That is, the patient did not consent to be treated by an unvaccinated person.
 

Employer options

So, what can health care employers do? They have three options:

• Require vaccination of all employees, independent contractors, and other providers who have privileges to see patients. Then, as long as the employer enforces the vaccination mandate, the employer can tell patients that all providers are vaccinated.
• Not require that employees and others with access to patients be vaccinated, and if a patient requests to be seen only by vaccinated providers, provide that patient with a vaccinated provider. It is especially important that health care employers take care with patients who are unvaccinated and who have been advised not to be vaccinated because of a medical condition. Both the patient and the health care employer would be protected best by avoiding having two unvaccinated individuals interact. Masks and physical distancing may decrease the risk.
• Not require that employees be vaccinated and refuse to guarantee that providers are vaccinated. To avoid risk for future lawsuits, employers should inform patients that there is no assurance that providers are vaccinated. That leaves it to each patient to ask individual providers about the provider’s vaccination status. If a patient doesn’t like a provider’s answer, then the patient has the right to leave. It’s not clear that the patient has a legal right to stay and demand a vaccinated provider.

Option three is problematic for a number of reasons. Patients aren’t always in a position to query each provider who enters the room about vaccination status. Patients may be sedated or too ill to exert that effort. And it puts supervisors in the position of having to mediate situations where a patient wants to leave against medical advice but the option of staying may also be dangerous.

Health care employers should discuss the options with their legal counsel before deciding which option to adopt.

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

An influential, independent panel unanimously voted that aducanumab (Aduhelm) offers no benefit for patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.

Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.

There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.

Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.

Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.

“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.

“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”

Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.

In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).

However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.

No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.

Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
 

More push back

Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.

On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.

In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.

The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.

On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.

The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.

The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.

ICER will release a final report on aducanumab on August 5, drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.

Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.

In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”

At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.

“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”

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

An influential, independent panel unanimously voted that aducanumab (Aduhelm) offers no benefit for patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.

Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.

There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.

Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.

Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.

“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.

“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”

Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.

In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).

However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.

No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.

Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
 

More push back

Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.

On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.

In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.

The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.

On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.

The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.

The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.

ICER will release a final report on aducanumab on August 5, drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.

Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.

In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”

At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.

“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”

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

An influential, independent panel unanimously voted that aducanumab (Aduhelm) offers no benefit for patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.

Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.

There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.

Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.

Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.

“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.

“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”

Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.

In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).

However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.

No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.

Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
 

More push back

Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.

On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.

In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.

The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.

On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.

The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.

The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.

ICER will release a final report on aducanumab on August 5, drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.

Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.

In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”

At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.

“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, is cosponsoring legislation that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

VladK213/Getty Images

The Cannabis Administration & Opportunity Act would allow the federal government to regulate and tax marijuana sales for the first time and would stop the federal prosecution of people for possessing and selling the drug, The New York Times reported. States could still make their own marijuana laws, however.

The bill calls for using money raised by taxing marijuana to help poor people and communities of color that have been unduly affected by marijuana laws.

Arrests and convictions for nonviolent marijuana offenses would be automatically expunged, The New York Times reported.

“The War on Drugs has been a war on people – particularly people of color,” a draft of the bill said, adding that the bill “aims to end the decades of harm inflicted on communities of color by removing cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances and empowering states to implement their own cannabis laws.”

But passage of the bill is highly uncertain because of strong Republican opposition in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority, according to The New York Times.

President Biden has not said he supports such legislation.

Sen. Schumer signaled his intentions when he spoke on April 20, the unofficial holiday for marijuana smokers.

“Hopefully, the next time this unofficial holiday of 4/20 rolls around, our country will have made progress in addressing the massive overcriminalization of marijuana in a meaningful and comprehensive way,” he said at the time, the newspaper reported.

Cosponsors were U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

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

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, is cosponsoring legislation that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

VladK213/Getty Images

The Cannabis Administration & Opportunity Act would allow the federal government to regulate and tax marijuana sales for the first time and would stop the federal prosecution of people for possessing and selling the drug, The New York Times reported. States could still make their own marijuana laws, however.

The bill calls for using money raised by taxing marijuana to help poor people and communities of color that have been unduly affected by marijuana laws.

Arrests and convictions for nonviolent marijuana offenses would be automatically expunged, The New York Times reported.

“The War on Drugs has been a war on people – particularly people of color,” a draft of the bill said, adding that the bill “aims to end the decades of harm inflicted on communities of color by removing cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances and empowering states to implement their own cannabis laws.”

But passage of the bill is highly uncertain because of strong Republican opposition in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority, according to The New York Times.

President Biden has not said he supports such legislation.

Sen. Schumer signaled his intentions when he spoke on April 20, the unofficial holiday for marijuana smokers.

“Hopefully, the next time this unofficial holiday of 4/20 rolls around, our country will have made progress in addressing the massive overcriminalization of marijuana in a meaningful and comprehensive way,” he said at the time, the newspaper reported.

Cosponsors were U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

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

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, is cosponsoring legislation that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

VladK213/Getty Images

The Cannabis Administration & Opportunity Act would allow the federal government to regulate and tax marijuana sales for the first time and would stop the federal prosecution of people for possessing and selling the drug, The New York Times reported. States could still make their own marijuana laws, however.

The bill calls for using money raised by taxing marijuana to help poor people and communities of color that have been unduly affected by marijuana laws.

Arrests and convictions for nonviolent marijuana offenses would be automatically expunged, The New York Times reported.

“The War on Drugs has been a war on people – particularly people of color,” a draft of the bill said, adding that the bill “aims to end the decades of harm inflicted on communities of color by removing cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances and empowering states to implement their own cannabis laws.”

But passage of the bill is highly uncertain because of strong Republican opposition in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority, according to The New York Times.

President Biden has not said he supports such legislation.

Sen. Schumer signaled his intentions when he spoke on April 20, the unofficial holiday for marijuana smokers.

“Hopefully, the next time this unofficial holiday of 4/20 rolls around, our country will have made progress in addressing the massive overcriminalization of marijuana in a meaningful and comprehensive way,” he said at the time, the newspaper reported.

Cosponsors were U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

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

An updated consensus statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) offers detailed recommendations on the use of novel acute and preventive treatments in adult patients with migraine.

“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.

To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
 

New migraine treatment

Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT_1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.

Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”

The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.

More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.

Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.

Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
 

Initiating treatment

When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.

The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.

From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.

The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
 

Not everyone agrees

Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:

1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment

2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”

Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”

Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”

They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”

Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”

Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
 

Suggested reading

Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.

Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.

Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.

An updated consensus statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) offers detailed recommendations on the use of novel acute and preventive treatments in adult patients with migraine.

“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.

To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
 

New migraine treatment

Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT_1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.

Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”

The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.

More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.

Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.

Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
 

Initiating treatment

When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.

The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.

From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.

The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
 

Not everyone agrees

Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:

1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment

2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”

Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”

Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”

They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”

Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”

Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
 

Suggested reading

Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.

Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.

Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.

An updated consensus statement from the American Headache Society (AHS) offers detailed recommendations on the use of novel acute and preventive treatments in adult patients with migraine.

“Because the benefit–risk profiles of newer treatments will continue to evolve as clinical trial and real-world data accrue, the American Headache Society intends to review this statement regularly and update, if appropriate, based on the emergence of evidence with implications for clinical practice,” wrote lead author Jessica Ailani, MD, of the department of neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. The statement was published in Headache.

To assess recent data on the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of newly introduced acute and preventive migraine treatments, the AHS convened a small task force to review relevant literature published from December 2018 through February 2021. The society’s board of directors, along with patients and patient advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation, also provided pertinent commentary.
 

New migraine treatment

Five recently approved acute migraine treatments were specifically noted: two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists – rimegepant and ubrogepant – along with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib, the serotonin 5-HT_1F agonist lasmiditan, and remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). Highlighted risks include serious cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients on celecoxib, along with driving impairment, sleepiness, and the possibility of overuse in patients on lasmiditan. The authors added, however, that REN “has shown good tolerability and safety in clinical trials” and that frequent use of rimegepant or ubrogepant does not appear to lead to medication-overuse headache.

Regarding acute treatment overall, the statement recommended nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), nonopioid analgesics, acetaminophen, or caffeinated analgesic combinations – such as aspirin plus acetaminophen plus caffeine – for mild to moderate attacks. For moderate or severe attacks, they recommended migraine-specific agents such as triptans, small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), or selective serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans). No matter the prescribed treatment, the statement pushed for patients to “treat at the first sign of pain to improve the probability of achieving freedom from pain and reduce attack-related disability.”

The authors added that 30% of patients on triptans have an “insufficient response” and as such may benefit from a second triptan or – if certain criteria are met – switching to a gepant, a ditan, or a neuromodulatory device. They also recommended a nonoral formulation for patients whose attacks are often accompanied by severe nausea or vomiting.

More broadly, they addressed the tolerability and safety issues associated with certain treatments, including the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects of NSAIDs and the dangers of using triptans in patients with coronary artery disease or other vascular disorders. And while gepants and ditans appeared in clinical trials to be safe choices for patients with stable cardiovascular disease, “benefit-risk should be assessed in each patient as the real-world database for these therapies grows,” they wrote.

Only one recently approved preventive treatment – eptinezumab, an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (MAB) – was highlighted. The authors noted that its benefits can begin within 24 hours, and it can reduce acute medication use and therefore the risk of medication-overuse headache.

Regarding preventive treatments overall, the authors stated that prevention should be offered if patients suffer from 6 or more days of headache per month, or 3-4 days of headache plus some-to-severe disability. Preventive treatments should be considered in patients who range from at least 2 days of headache per month plus severe disability to 4 or 5 days of headache. Prevention should also be considered in patients with uncommon migraine subtypes, including hemiplegic migraine, migraine with brainstem aura, and migraine with prolonged aura.
 

Initiating treatment

When considering initiation of treatment with one of the four Food and Drug Administration–approved CGRP MABs – eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab – the authors recommend their use if migraine patients show an inability to tolerate or respond to a trial of two or more older oral medications or other established effective therapies. Though they emphasized that oral preventive medications should be started at a low dose and titrated slowly until the target response is reached or tolerability issues emerge, no such need was specified for the parenteral treatments. They also endorsed the approach of patients staying on oral preventive drugs for a minimum of 8 weeks to determine effectiveness or a lack thereof; at that point, switching to another treatment is recommended.

The dual use of therapies such as neuromodulation, biobehavioral therapies, and gepants were also examined, including gepants’ potential as a “continuum between the acute and preventive treatment of migraine” and the limited use of neuromodulatory devices in clinical practice despite clear benefits in patients who prefer to avoid medication or those suffering from frequent attacks and subsequent medication overuse. In addition, it was stated that biobehavioral therapies have “grade A evidence” supporting their use in patients who either prefer nonpharmacologic treatments or have an adverse or poor reaction to the drugs.

From the patient perspective, one of the six reviewers shared concerns about migraine patients being required to try two established preventive medications before starting a recently introduced option, noting that the older drugs have lower efficacy and tolerability. Two reviewers would have liked to see the statement focus more on nonpharmacologic and device-related therapies, and one reviewer noted the possible value in guidance regarding “exploratory approaches” such as cannabis.

The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, grants, personal fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and publishing companies.
 

Not everyone agrees

Commenting on the AHS consensus statement, James A Charles, MD, and Ira Turner, MD, had this to say: “This Consensus Statement incorporates the best available evidence including the newer CGRP therapies as well as the older treatments. The AHS posture is that the CGRP abortive and preventive treatments have a lesser amount of data and experience than the older treatments which have a wealth of literature and data because they have been around longer. As a result, there are 2 statements in these guidelines that the insurance companies quote in their manual of policies:

1. Inadequate response to two or more oral triptans before using a gepant as abortive treatment

2. Inadequate response to an 8-week trial at a dose established to be potentially effective of two or more of the following before using CGRP MAB for preventive treatment: topiramate, divalproex sodium/valproate sodium; beta-blocker: metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, atenolol, nadolol; tricyclic antidepressant: amitriptyline, nortriptyline; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor: venlafaxine, duloxetine; other Level A or B treatments.”

Dr. Charles, who is affiliated with Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck N.J., and Dr. Turner, who is affiliated with the Center for Headache Care and Research at Island Neurological Associates in Plainview, N.Y., further said that “giving the CGRP MABs and gepants second-class status because they have not been around as long as the old boys is an insult to the research, development, and successful execution of gepant and CGRP MAB therapies in the last several years. The authors omitted the Hepp study and the long list of adverse effects of triptans leading to high discontinuance rates, and how trying a second triptan will probably not work.” Importantly, they said, “the authors have given the insurance carriers a weapon to deny direct access to gepants and CGRP MABs making direct access to these agents difficult for patients and physicians and their staffs.”

Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner point out that the AHS guidelines use the term “cost effective” – that it is better to use the cheaper, older drugs first. “Ineffective treatment of a patient for 8 weeks before using CGRP blocking therapies and using 2 triptans before a gepant is cost ineffective,” they said. “Inadequate delayed treatment results in loss of work productivity and loss of school and family participation and excessive use of ER visits. These guidelines forget that we ameliorate current disability and prevent chronification by treating with the most effective abortive and preventive therapies which may not commence with the cheaper old drugs.”

They explain: “Of course, we would use a beta-blocker for comorbid hypertension and/or anxiety, and venlafaxine for comorbid depression. And if a patient is pain free in 2 hrs with no adverse effects from a triptan used less than 10 times a month, it would not be appropriate to switch to a gepant. However, a treatment naive migraineur with accelerating migraine should have the option of going directly to a gepant and CGRP blocking MAB.” Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner concur that the phrase in the AHS consensus statement regarding the staging of therapy – two triptans before a gepant and two oral preventatives for 8 weeks before a CGRP MAB – “should be removed so that the CGRP drugs get the equal credit they deserve, as can be attested to by the migraine voices of lives saved by the sound research that led to their development and approval by the FDA.”

Ultimately, Dr. Charles and Dr. Turner said, “the final decision on treatment should be made by the physician and patient, not the insurance company or consensus statements.”

Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, former president of the International Headache Society, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said, “Although I think the consensus statement is well done, and the authors have the right to make the statements they have made, Drs. Charles and Turner are excellent experienced clinicians and they should be heard. They properly state that the restrictive statements highlighted by the authors have already been used by insurance companies to prevent access to the more expensive but more effective therapies with fewer adverse effects.”

Dr. Rapoport goes on to say, “I believe that the patient’s individual headache history and past responses to therapies must be analyzed by the treating physician and an appropriate treatment be agreed upon between the patient and doctor. It is time to let experienced headache-interested doctors make their own correct decision about treatment without the heavy hand of the insurance company, which is often more intent on saving money than helping the patient.
 

Suggested reading

Hepp Z et al. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(6):478-88.

Alam A et al. Triptan use and discontinuation in a representative sample of persons with migraine: Results from Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study. Headache. 2018;58:68‐69.

Buse DC et al. Adding additional acute medications to a triptan regimen for migraine and observed changes in headache-related disability: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):825-39.

Tennessee officials have fired the state’s top vaccination manager, who faced recent criticism from Republican lawmakers about her efforts to vaccinate teens against COVID-19.

Michelle Fiscus, MD, the medical director for vaccine-preventable diseases and immunization programs at the Tennessee Department of Health, was terminated on July 12. The termination letter doesn’t explain the reason for her dismissal, according to the newspaper, which received a copy of the letter.

“It was my job to provide evidence-based education and vaccine access so that Tennesseans could protect themselves against COVID-19,” Dr. Fiscus told the Tennessean. “I have now been terminated for doing exactly that.”

In May, Dr. Fiscus sent a memo to medical providers that described the state’s “Mature Minor Doctrine,” a legal mechanism established in 1987 that allows some minors between the ages if 14 and 17 years to receive medical care without parental consent. Tennessee is one of five states that allows health care providers to decide if a minor has the capacity to consent to care, according to CNN.

Dr. Fiscus said she sent the letter in response to providers’ questions and that it contained no new information. She also said the wording was approved by the health department’s attorney and the governor’s office, the newspaper reported.

At a June 16 hearing of the state’s Joint Government Operations Committee, however, Republican officials criticized the memo and Dr. Fiscus, saying that the state misinterpreted its legal authority. During the meeting, some lawmakers discussed dissolving the state health department to stop it from promoting vaccines to teens, the newspaper reported.

Since then, the health department has backed down from promoting vaccines to teens by deleting social media posts that recommended vaccines to anyone over age 12. Internal emails, which were obtained by the Tennessean, showed that department leaders ordered county-level employees to avoid holding vaccine events targeted toward adolescents.

Dr. Fiscus’s firing comes as vaccination efforts lag in the state. About 38% of residents have been fully vaccinated. At the current pace, Tennessee won’t pass the 50% mark until next March, according to an internal report obtained by the newspaper.

COVID-19 cases are beginning to climb again, particularly with the Delta variant circulating among unvaccinated residents. After months of a decline in cases, the average of daily cases has more than doubled since the end of June. The state’s test positivity rate has increased from 2% to 4.5% during that time as well.

In a long written statement, Dr. Fiscus said she was the 25th of 64 state and territorial immunization program directors to leave their positions during the pandemic, whether through resignation or termination. With a loss of institutional knowledge and leadership, COVID-19 vaccine efforts will fall behind.

“Each of us should be waking up every morning with one question on our minds: ‘What can I do protect the people of Tennessee against COVID-19?’ ” she wrote. “Instead, our leaders are putting barriers in place to ensure the people of Tennessee remain at risk, even with the Delta variant bearing down upon us.”

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

Tennessee officials have fired the state’s top vaccination manager, who faced recent criticism from Republican lawmakers about her efforts to vaccinate teens against COVID-19.

Michelle Fiscus, MD, the medical director for vaccine-preventable diseases and immunization programs at the Tennessee Department of Health, was terminated on July 12. The termination letter doesn’t explain the reason for her dismissal, according to the newspaper, which received a copy of the letter.

“It was my job to provide evidence-based education and vaccine access so that Tennesseans could protect themselves against COVID-19,” Dr. Fiscus told the Tennessean. “I have now been terminated for doing exactly that.”

In May, Dr. Fiscus sent a memo to medical providers that described the state’s “Mature Minor Doctrine,” a legal mechanism established in 1987 that allows some minors between the ages if 14 and 17 years to receive medical care without parental consent. Tennessee is one of five states that allows health care providers to decide if a minor has the capacity to consent to care, according to CNN.

Dr. Fiscus said she sent the letter in response to providers’ questions and that it contained no new information. She also said the wording was approved by the health department’s attorney and the governor’s office, the newspaper reported.

At a June 16 hearing of the state’s Joint Government Operations Committee, however, Republican officials criticized the memo and Dr. Fiscus, saying that the state misinterpreted its legal authority. During the meeting, some lawmakers discussed dissolving the state health department to stop it from promoting vaccines to teens, the newspaper reported.

Since then, the health department has backed down from promoting vaccines to teens by deleting social media posts that recommended vaccines to anyone over age 12. Internal emails, which were obtained by the Tennessean, showed that department leaders ordered county-level employees to avoid holding vaccine events targeted toward adolescents.

Dr. Fiscus’s firing comes as vaccination efforts lag in the state. About 38% of residents have been fully vaccinated. At the current pace, Tennessee won’t pass the 50% mark until next March, according to an internal report obtained by the newspaper.

COVID-19 cases are beginning to climb again, particularly with the Delta variant circulating among unvaccinated residents. After months of a decline in cases, the average of daily cases has more than doubled since the end of June. The state’s test positivity rate has increased from 2% to 4.5% during that time as well.

In a long written statement, Dr. Fiscus said she was the 25th of 64 state and territorial immunization program directors to leave their positions during the pandemic, whether through resignation or termination. With a loss of institutional knowledge and leadership, COVID-19 vaccine efforts will fall behind.

“Each of us should be waking up every morning with one question on our minds: ‘What can I do protect the people of Tennessee against COVID-19?’ ” she wrote. “Instead, our leaders are putting barriers in place to ensure the people of Tennessee remain at risk, even with the Delta variant bearing down upon us.”

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

Tennessee officials have fired the state’s top vaccination manager, who faced recent criticism from Republican lawmakers about her efforts to vaccinate teens against COVID-19.

Michelle Fiscus, MD, the medical director for vaccine-preventable diseases and immunization programs at the Tennessee Department of Health, was terminated on July 12. The termination letter doesn’t explain the reason for her dismissal, according to the newspaper, which received a copy of the letter.

“It was my job to provide evidence-based education and vaccine access so that Tennesseans could protect themselves against COVID-19,” Dr. Fiscus told the Tennessean. “I have now been terminated for doing exactly that.”

In May, Dr. Fiscus sent a memo to medical providers that described the state’s “Mature Minor Doctrine,” a legal mechanism established in 1987 that allows some minors between the ages if 14 and 17 years to receive medical care without parental consent. Tennessee is one of five states that allows health care providers to decide if a minor has the capacity to consent to care, according to CNN.

Dr. Fiscus said she sent the letter in response to providers’ questions and that it contained no new information. She also said the wording was approved by the health department’s attorney and the governor’s office, the newspaper reported.

At a June 16 hearing of the state’s Joint Government Operations Committee, however, Republican officials criticized the memo and Dr. Fiscus, saying that the state misinterpreted its legal authority. During the meeting, some lawmakers discussed dissolving the state health department to stop it from promoting vaccines to teens, the newspaper reported.

Since then, the health department has backed down from promoting vaccines to teens by deleting social media posts that recommended vaccines to anyone over age 12. Internal emails, which were obtained by the Tennessean, showed that department leaders ordered county-level employees to avoid holding vaccine events targeted toward adolescents.

Dr. Fiscus’s firing comes as vaccination efforts lag in the state. About 38% of residents have been fully vaccinated. At the current pace, Tennessee won’t pass the 50% mark until next March, according to an internal report obtained by the newspaper.

COVID-19 cases are beginning to climb again, particularly with the Delta variant circulating among unvaccinated residents. After months of a decline in cases, the average of daily cases has more than doubled since the end of June. The state’s test positivity rate has increased from 2% to 4.5% during that time as well.

In a long written statement, Dr. Fiscus said she was the 25th of 64 state and territorial immunization program directors to leave their positions during the pandemic, whether through resignation or termination. With a loss of institutional knowledge and leadership, COVID-19 vaccine efforts will fall behind.

“Each of us should be waking up every morning with one question on our minds: ‘What can I do protect the people of Tennessee against COVID-19?’ ” she wrote. “Instead, our leaders are putting barriers in place to ensure the people of Tennessee remain at risk, even with the Delta variant bearing down upon us.”

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