The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first fecal microbiota product to prevent recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in people aged 18 years and older.

Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.

“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.

As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.

A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.

The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
 

A vicious cycle

Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.

Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.

Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.

The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.

In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.

The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.

Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.

The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.

Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.

Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first fecal microbiota product to prevent recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in people aged 18 years and older.

Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.

“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.

As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.

A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.

The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
 

A vicious cycle

Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.

Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.

Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.

The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.

In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.

The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.

Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.

The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.

Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.

Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first fecal microbiota product to prevent recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in people aged 18 years and older.

Rebyota (fecal microbiota, live-jslm), from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, is intended for use after an individual has completed antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI. It is not indicated for the first occurrence of CDI.

“Recurrent CDI impacts an individual’s quality of life and can also potentially be life-threatening,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing approval.

As the first FDA-approved fecal microbiota product, this approval “represents an important milestone, as it provides an additional approved option to prevent recurrent CDI,” Dr. Marks added.

A panel of FDA advisors recommended approval of Rebyota in September.

The application for Rebyota received priority review and had orphan drug and breakthrough therapy designation.
 

A vicious cycle

Treatment options for recurrent CDI are limited. It’s been estimated that up to one-third of CDI cases recur, and people who suffer a recurrent bout of CDI are at a significantly higher risk for further infections.

Following the first recurrence, up to two-thirds of patients may experience a subsequent recurrence. Antibiotics used to treat CDI may contribute to a cycle of recurrence by altering the gut flora. The administration of fecal microbiota helps restore the gut flora to prevent further episodes of CDI.

Rebyota is a microbiota-based live biotherapeutic prepared from human stool collected from prescreened, qualified donors. It comes prepackaged in a single dose that is administered rectally.

The safety and efficacy of Rebyota were assessed in five clinical trials with more than 1,000 participants, the company notes in a press release.

In one trial, following a standard course of antibiotics, a one-time treatment with Rebyota was successful for three-quarters of participants at 8 weeks.

The treatment also prevented additional bouts; 84% of these initial responders remaining free of CDI at 6 months.

Two-thirds of participants reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Most events were mild to moderate in severity. Diarrhea and abdominal pain were the most common.

The data, from the ongoing PUNCH CD3-OLS study, were presented in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology and were published simultaneously in the journal Drugs.

“This is a positive adjunct to our current therapies for C. difficile in terms of trying to knock it out once a standard course of antibiotics has been administered,” Lisa Malter, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

Dr. Malter acknowledged that because it’s delivered rectally, there could be “some hesitation” on the patient’s part to undergo the therapy.

However, C. difficile can be “excruciating” for patients, and they “may be more than willing to take [this agent] because it gets them feeling better,” Dr. Malter said.

Full prescribing information for Rebyota is available online.

Dr. Malter reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weight loss advice is everywhere you look on social media, but one trend sweeping TikTok has led to shortages of an important diabetes drug.

Ozempic, a weekly injection that helps boost insulin sensitivity in people with type 2 diabetes, also suppresses appetite, which leads to weight loss. Stories of celebrities using the drug off-label to lose a few pounds have led to an explosion of interest. And now people with diabetes – people whose lives could be saved by the drug – are having trouble finding it.
 

Kim Kardashian and Elon Musk

In the spring, Kim Kardashian pulled off a dramatic weight loss to fit into Marilyn Monroe’s dress for the Met Gala. Soon rumors began to circulate that she’d used Ozempic to do it. Just this week, new Twitter owner Elon Musk tweeted about his own use of Ozempic and its sibling drug, Wegovy.

Variety dubbed Ozempic “the worst kept secret in Hollywood – especially given that its most enthusiastic users are not prediabetic and do not require the drug.” The rich and famous are spending $1,200 to $1,500 a month to get access.

As so often happens, high-profile use sparked a trend. Videos on TikTok hashtagged #ozempic have amassed more than 275 million views, and #ozempicweightloss has more than 110 million.

This raises concerns about who, exactly, is watching these videos, and what message they’re receiving.

“Forty-two percent of Americans have obesity, and even more have overweight. That’s affecting our younger people and our adolescents,” says Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “They’re looking at TikTok and other social media outlets for help.”

A new study shows how damaging this can be: Researchers analyzed 1,000 videos with nutrition, food, and weight-related hashtags, with over 1 billion views combined. They found that nearly all included messages glorifying weight loss and thinness.
 

At last, an effective weight-loss drug

Ozempic is Danish drug company Novo Nordisk’s brand name for semaglutide, which works by mimicking a naturally occurring hormone known as GLP-1. It travels to your brain and helps you feel full on less food. That leads to weight loss. In one 68-week study, semaglutide helped people lose an average of 15% of their body weight. But it’s not a miracle drug: You still have to change your eating habits and stay physically active.

The FDA approved Ozempic to treat people with type 2 diabetes in 2017. Four years later, Novo Nordisk received the green light for a higher-dose version meant specifically for people with obesity. Wegovy is approved for use only if you have a BMI of at least 27 with one or more weight-related ailments, or a BMI of 30 or more with none.

“These drugs are dominating my practice, because they’re so effective,” says Amanda Velazquez, MD, director of obesity medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The drug is considered safe, “so the majority of patients are good candidates.”
 

More demand than supply

As word spread about how well Ozempic and Wegovy worked, social media posts helped drive even more people to seek out the drugs. Now demand is outpacing the supply – according to the FDA, starter doses of Ozempic will have limited availability through January. 

“In Hollywood, people are losing 10 pounds, getting it for $1,500 a month, and depleting stores for people who have such severe obesity that they have congestive heart failure and diabetes,” Dr. Apovian says. “These are people who are going to die, and you’re taking it away just for cosmetic weight loss. That is deplorable.”

In addition to huge demand, Wegovy also had a disruption in its supply chain. Right now, it isn’t available at all in lower doses, which is helping to spike off-label demand for Ozempic. Novo Nordisk expects to have these problems sorted out by the end of the year, with distribution following soon after.
 

The price of access

With a list price of $1,350 a month, Wegovy costs as much as many mortgages. And Medicaid, Medicare, and many insurance companies don’t cover it. Although obesity is a disease, the insurance industry treats weight loss as more of a vanity issue – so even if you could find the drug, you might not be able to afford it. 

“We’re seeing that roughly half the prescriptions we write aren’t being covered,” Dr. Apovian says. “And for the half that are covered, we have to do prior authorization, which takes days, and it’s laborious.” In some instances, she says, insurance companies withdraw authorization after 3 months if they don’t see enough weight coming off.

It’s not like you can take Wegovy for 3 months, lose some weight, and expect it to stay off, either. The medication requires a real commitment, potentially for life. That’s because once the semaglutide leaves your system, your appetite returns. In one study, people regained two-thirds of the weight they’d lost within a year of stopping.

Many see a double standard in the insurance companies’ refusal to cover a drug that could prevent serious illness or death.

“They’re saying it’s not cost-effective to give the 42% of Americans who have a BMI over 30 Wegovy. Did they say this when statins came out?” Dr. Apovian says. “Why are they doing this with antiobesity agents? It’s the culture. The culture isn’t ready to adopt obesity as the disease that it is.”

Unpleasant side effects

Let’s assume you’re one of the lucky ones – your insurance covers Wegovy, and you can actually find some. You might discover that using it is no walk in the park. Common side effects include gastrointestinal issues like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

“The way we counteract that is to start very slowly at a low dose of these medications,” Dr. Apovian says. “We only go up when the patient doesn’t have nausea or it gets better.”

Elise Davenport was excited to try Wegovy. “I did my online research. I’m the type who’s interested in early adoption, tech gadgets and stuff,” says the 40-year-old technical writer. “I wanted to try it because I’d tried so many other things that failed, or hadn’t worked long-term.”

With a BMI over 30, Ms. Davenport qualified for the drug. She signed up for an online program that guaranteed insurance coverage and started taking it in October 2021. At first, the side effects were mild, just a touch of nausea and diarrhea. And the results were impressive. She found it easy to feel satisfied with smaller portions and lost her cravings for sugar and highly processed foods. The weight fell off, roughly 5 pounds a week.

It turns out, that’s too much, too fast. Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients lose more like 2 pounds each week, with careful monitoring. 

By early December, Ms. Davenport’s side effects were ramping up. Because of shortages in lower dosages, the online program wasn’t able to adjust hers right away. She felt nauseated all the time, bad enough that brushing her teeth made her vomit and she had to force herself to eat. Some weeks, she managed less than 500 calories a day. Her sleep patterns became erratic. And then her depression, which medication had kept under control for years, spiraled.

“I remember sitting on the floor of my bathroom crying, thinking I’d rather carry the extra weight,” she says. “I used to take a lot of enjoyment from food, and I had none of that anymore. It was such a joyless experience at that point.”

Eventually, her dosage was reduced and the symptoms let up, but her primary care doctor encouraged her to stop. By the time she did, in March, she’d lost 55 pounds. So far, she’s gained back about 10.
 

More than just weight loss

Even though Ms. Davenport’s experience wasn’t a good one, with better monitoring, she’d be willing to try again. For one thing, seeing how easy it was to eat less with medical help helped to undo years of shame.

“Our culture treats obesity like a moral failing. I realized I’d been made to feel that way by doctors and programs – that I wasn’t doing enough,” she says. “This drug made me realize there are legit physiological things going on in my body, things that are often excluded from the conversation.”

Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients regularly discover similar things.

“Obesity is not a disease of willpower. Medications are not the easy way out,” Dr. Velazquez says. “This is a chronic, relapsing medical condition, and because of that, we should treat it how we treat diabetes, high blood pressure, all these other conditions. We’d never hold back medication for individuals coming in with high blood pressure, tell them to work on willpower and withhold drugs they’d qualify for.”

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

Weight loss advice is everywhere you look on social media, but one trend sweeping TikTok has led to shortages of an important diabetes drug.

Ozempic, a weekly injection that helps boost insulin sensitivity in people with type 2 diabetes, also suppresses appetite, which leads to weight loss. Stories of celebrities using the drug off-label to lose a few pounds have led to an explosion of interest. And now people with diabetes – people whose lives could be saved by the drug – are having trouble finding it.
 

Kim Kardashian and Elon Musk

In the spring, Kim Kardashian pulled off a dramatic weight loss to fit into Marilyn Monroe’s dress for the Met Gala. Soon rumors began to circulate that she’d used Ozempic to do it. Just this week, new Twitter owner Elon Musk tweeted about his own use of Ozempic and its sibling drug, Wegovy.

Variety dubbed Ozempic “the worst kept secret in Hollywood – especially given that its most enthusiastic users are not prediabetic and do not require the drug.” The rich and famous are spending $1,200 to $1,500 a month to get access.

As so often happens, high-profile use sparked a trend. Videos on TikTok hashtagged #ozempic have amassed more than 275 million views, and #ozempicweightloss has more than 110 million.

This raises concerns about who, exactly, is watching these videos, and what message they’re receiving.

“Forty-two percent of Americans have obesity, and even more have overweight. That’s affecting our younger people and our adolescents,” says Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “They’re looking at TikTok and other social media outlets for help.”

A new study shows how damaging this can be: Researchers analyzed 1,000 videos with nutrition, food, and weight-related hashtags, with over 1 billion views combined. They found that nearly all included messages glorifying weight loss and thinness.
 

At last, an effective weight-loss drug

Ozempic is Danish drug company Novo Nordisk’s brand name for semaglutide, which works by mimicking a naturally occurring hormone known as GLP-1. It travels to your brain and helps you feel full on less food. That leads to weight loss. In one 68-week study, semaglutide helped people lose an average of 15% of their body weight. But it’s not a miracle drug: You still have to change your eating habits and stay physically active.

The FDA approved Ozempic to treat people with type 2 diabetes in 2017. Four years later, Novo Nordisk received the green light for a higher-dose version meant specifically for people with obesity. Wegovy is approved for use only if you have a BMI of at least 27 with one or more weight-related ailments, or a BMI of 30 or more with none.

“These drugs are dominating my practice, because they’re so effective,” says Amanda Velazquez, MD, director of obesity medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The drug is considered safe, “so the majority of patients are good candidates.”
 

More demand than supply

As word spread about how well Ozempic and Wegovy worked, social media posts helped drive even more people to seek out the drugs. Now demand is outpacing the supply – according to the FDA, starter doses of Ozempic will have limited availability through January. 

“In Hollywood, people are losing 10 pounds, getting it for $1,500 a month, and depleting stores for people who have such severe obesity that they have congestive heart failure and diabetes,” Dr. Apovian says. “These are people who are going to die, and you’re taking it away just for cosmetic weight loss. That is deplorable.”

In addition to huge demand, Wegovy also had a disruption in its supply chain. Right now, it isn’t available at all in lower doses, which is helping to spike off-label demand for Ozempic. Novo Nordisk expects to have these problems sorted out by the end of the year, with distribution following soon after.
 

The price of access

With a list price of $1,350 a month, Wegovy costs as much as many mortgages. And Medicaid, Medicare, and many insurance companies don’t cover it. Although obesity is a disease, the insurance industry treats weight loss as more of a vanity issue – so even if you could find the drug, you might not be able to afford it. 

“We’re seeing that roughly half the prescriptions we write aren’t being covered,” Dr. Apovian says. “And for the half that are covered, we have to do prior authorization, which takes days, and it’s laborious.” In some instances, she says, insurance companies withdraw authorization after 3 months if they don’t see enough weight coming off.

It’s not like you can take Wegovy for 3 months, lose some weight, and expect it to stay off, either. The medication requires a real commitment, potentially for life. That’s because once the semaglutide leaves your system, your appetite returns. In one study, people regained two-thirds of the weight they’d lost within a year of stopping.

Many see a double standard in the insurance companies’ refusal to cover a drug that could prevent serious illness or death.

“They’re saying it’s not cost-effective to give the 42% of Americans who have a BMI over 30 Wegovy. Did they say this when statins came out?” Dr. Apovian says. “Why are they doing this with antiobesity agents? It’s the culture. The culture isn’t ready to adopt obesity as the disease that it is.”

Unpleasant side effects

Let’s assume you’re one of the lucky ones – your insurance covers Wegovy, and you can actually find some. You might discover that using it is no walk in the park. Common side effects include gastrointestinal issues like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

“The way we counteract that is to start very slowly at a low dose of these medications,” Dr. Apovian says. “We only go up when the patient doesn’t have nausea or it gets better.”

Elise Davenport was excited to try Wegovy. “I did my online research. I’m the type who’s interested in early adoption, tech gadgets and stuff,” says the 40-year-old technical writer. “I wanted to try it because I’d tried so many other things that failed, or hadn’t worked long-term.”

With a BMI over 30, Ms. Davenport qualified for the drug. She signed up for an online program that guaranteed insurance coverage and started taking it in October 2021. At first, the side effects were mild, just a touch of nausea and diarrhea. And the results were impressive. She found it easy to feel satisfied with smaller portions and lost her cravings for sugar and highly processed foods. The weight fell off, roughly 5 pounds a week.

It turns out, that’s too much, too fast. Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients lose more like 2 pounds each week, with careful monitoring. 

By early December, Ms. Davenport’s side effects were ramping up. Because of shortages in lower dosages, the online program wasn’t able to adjust hers right away. She felt nauseated all the time, bad enough that brushing her teeth made her vomit and she had to force herself to eat. Some weeks, she managed less than 500 calories a day. Her sleep patterns became erratic. And then her depression, which medication had kept under control for years, spiraled.

“I remember sitting on the floor of my bathroom crying, thinking I’d rather carry the extra weight,” she says. “I used to take a lot of enjoyment from food, and I had none of that anymore. It was such a joyless experience at that point.”

Eventually, her dosage was reduced and the symptoms let up, but her primary care doctor encouraged her to stop. By the time she did, in March, she’d lost 55 pounds. So far, she’s gained back about 10.
 

More than just weight loss

Even though Ms. Davenport’s experience wasn’t a good one, with better monitoring, she’d be willing to try again. For one thing, seeing how easy it was to eat less with medical help helped to undo years of shame.

“Our culture treats obesity like a moral failing. I realized I’d been made to feel that way by doctors and programs – that I wasn’t doing enough,” she says. “This drug made me realize there are legit physiological things going on in my body, things that are often excluded from the conversation.”

Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients regularly discover similar things.

“Obesity is not a disease of willpower. Medications are not the easy way out,” Dr. Velazquez says. “This is a chronic, relapsing medical condition, and because of that, we should treat it how we treat diabetes, high blood pressure, all these other conditions. We’d never hold back medication for individuals coming in with high blood pressure, tell them to work on willpower and withhold drugs they’d qualify for.”

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

Weight loss advice is everywhere you look on social media, but one trend sweeping TikTok has led to shortages of an important diabetes drug.

Ozempic, a weekly injection that helps boost insulin sensitivity in people with type 2 diabetes, also suppresses appetite, which leads to weight loss. Stories of celebrities using the drug off-label to lose a few pounds have led to an explosion of interest. And now people with diabetes – people whose lives could be saved by the drug – are having trouble finding it.
 

Kim Kardashian and Elon Musk

In the spring, Kim Kardashian pulled off a dramatic weight loss to fit into Marilyn Monroe’s dress for the Met Gala. Soon rumors began to circulate that she’d used Ozempic to do it. Just this week, new Twitter owner Elon Musk tweeted about his own use of Ozempic and its sibling drug, Wegovy.

Variety dubbed Ozempic “the worst kept secret in Hollywood – especially given that its most enthusiastic users are not prediabetic and do not require the drug.” The rich and famous are spending $1,200 to $1,500 a month to get access.

As so often happens, high-profile use sparked a trend. Videos on TikTok hashtagged #ozempic have amassed more than 275 million views, and #ozempicweightloss has more than 110 million.

This raises concerns about who, exactly, is watching these videos, and what message they’re receiving.

“Forty-two percent of Americans have obesity, and even more have overweight. That’s affecting our younger people and our adolescents,” says Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “They’re looking at TikTok and other social media outlets for help.”

A new study shows how damaging this can be: Researchers analyzed 1,000 videos with nutrition, food, and weight-related hashtags, with over 1 billion views combined. They found that nearly all included messages glorifying weight loss and thinness.
 

At last, an effective weight-loss drug

Ozempic is Danish drug company Novo Nordisk’s brand name for semaglutide, which works by mimicking a naturally occurring hormone known as GLP-1. It travels to your brain and helps you feel full on less food. That leads to weight loss. In one 68-week study, semaglutide helped people lose an average of 15% of their body weight. But it’s not a miracle drug: You still have to change your eating habits and stay physically active.

The FDA approved Ozempic to treat people with type 2 diabetes in 2017. Four years later, Novo Nordisk received the green light for a higher-dose version meant specifically for people with obesity. Wegovy is approved for use only if you have a BMI of at least 27 with one or more weight-related ailments, or a BMI of 30 or more with none.

“These drugs are dominating my practice, because they’re so effective,” says Amanda Velazquez, MD, director of obesity medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The drug is considered safe, “so the majority of patients are good candidates.”
 

More demand than supply

As word spread about how well Ozempic and Wegovy worked, social media posts helped drive even more people to seek out the drugs. Now demand is outpacing the supply – according to the FDA, starter doses of Ozempic will have limited availability through January. 

“In Hollywood, people are losing 10 pounds, getting it for $1,500 a month, and depleting stores for people who have such severe obesity that they have congestive heart failure and diabetes,” Dr. Apovian says. “These are people who are going to die, and you’re taking it away just for cosmetic weight loss. That is deplorable.”

In addition to huge demand, Wegovy also had a disruption in its supply chain. Right now, it isn’t available at all in lower doses, which is helping to spike off-label demand for Ozempic. Novo Nordisk expects to have these problems sorted out by the end of the year, with distribution following soon after.
 

The price of access

With a list price of $1,350 a month, Wegovy costs as much as many mortgages. And Medicaid, Medicare, and many insurance companies don’t cover it. Although obesity is a disease, the insurance industry treats weight loss as more of a vanity issue – so even if you could find the drug, you might not be able to afford it. 

“We’re seeing that roughly half the prescriptions we write aren’t being covered,” Dr. Apovian says. “And for the half that are covered, we have to do prior authorization, which takes days, and it’s laborious.” In some instances, she says, insurance companies withdraw authorization after 3 months if they don’t see enough weight coming off.

It’s not like you can take Wegovy for 3 months, lose some weight, and expect it to stay off, either. The medication requires a real commitment, potentially for life. That’s because once the semaglutide leaves your system, your appetite returns. In one study, people regained two-thirds of the weight they’d lost within a year of stopping.

Many see a double standard in the insurance companies’ refusal to cover a drug that could prevent serious illness or death.

“They’re saying it’s not cost-effective to give the 42% of Americans who have a BMI over 30 Wegovy. Did they say this when statins came out?” Dr. Apovian says. “Why are they doing this with antiobesity agents? It’s the culture. The culture isn’t ready to adopt obesity as the disease that it is.”

Unpleasant side effects

Let’s assume you’re one of the lucky ones – your insurance covers Wegovy, and you can actually find some. You might discover that using it is no walk in the park. Common side effects include gastrointestinal issues like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

“The way we counteract that is to start very slowly at a low dose of these medications,” Dr. Apovian says. “We only go up when the patient doesn’t have nausea or it gets better.”

Elise Davenport was excited to try Wegovy. “I did my online research. I’m the type who’s interested in early adoption, tech gadgets and stuff,” says the 40-year-old technical writer. “I wanted to try it because I’d tried so many other things that failed, or hadn’t worked long-term.”

With a BMI over 30, Ms. Davenport qualified for the drug. She signed up for an online program that guaranteed insurance coverage and started taking it in October 2021. At first, the side effects were mild, just a touch of nausea and diarrhea. And the results were impressive. She found it easy to feel satisfied with smaller portions and lost her cravings for sugar and highly processed foods. The weight fell off, roughly 5 pounds a week.

It turns out, that’s too much, too fast. Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients lose more like 2 pounds each week, with careful monitoring. 

By early December, Ms. Davenport’s side effects were ramping up. Because of shortages in lower dosages, the online program wasn’t able to adjust hers right away. She felt nauseated all the time, bad enough that brushing her teeth made her vomit and she had to force herself to eat. Some weeks, she managed less than 500 calories a day. Her sleep patterns became erratic. And then her depression, which medication had kept under control for years, spiraled.

“I remember sitting on the floor of my bathroom crying, thinking I’d rather carry the extra weight,” she says. “I used to take a lot of enjoyment from food, and I had none of that anymore. It was such a joyless experience at that point.”

Eventually, her dosage was reduced and the symptoms let up, but her primary care doctor encouraged her to stop. By the time she did, in March, she’d lost 55 pounds. So far, she’s gained back about 10.
 

More than just weight loss

Even though Ms. Davenport’s experience wasn’t a good one, with better monitoring, she’d be willing to try again. For one thing, seeing how easy it was to eat less with medical help helped to undo years of shame.

“Our culture treats obesity like a moral failing. I realized I’d been made to feel that way by doctors and programs – that I wasn’t doing enough,” she says. “This drug made me realize there are legit physiological things going on in my body, things that are often excluded from the conversation.”

Dr. Apovian and Dr. Velazquez say their patients regularly discover similar things.

“Obesity is not a disease of willpower. Medications are not the easy way out,” Dr. Velazquez says. “This is a chronic, relapsing medical condition, and because of that, we should treat it how we treat diabetes, high blood pressure, all these other conditions. We’d never hold back medication for individuals coming in with high blood pressure, tell them to work on willpower and withhold drugs they’d qualify for.”

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

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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

Change is inevitable in residency as well as in life. Every year on July 1, the atmosphere and social structure of residencies change with the new postgraduate year 2 class. Each class brings a unique perspective and energy. Residents come together from different backgrounds and life situations. Some residents are single, some are engaged or married, and some are starting or expanding their families. Some residents will have prior careers, others will have graduate degrees or expertise in various fields. They will have different ethnic backgrounds, religious and/or spiritual beliefs, familial upbringings, personalities, and methods of communicating. These differences all are important to consider when developing a mindset of inclusion and camaraderie. As residents start their journey together, it is important to remember that residency is a team endeavor. The principles of teamwork apply directly to residents and are founded on creating a climate of trust and building strong relationships with one another._¹ Trust is the foundation of good relationships in the workplace; it allows people to communicate freely and foster the belief that everyone is working for each other’s best interests. Being open and sharing knowledge about networking opportunities, scholarships, and research projects is one way to foster collaboration and trust in residency.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in dermatology is a work in progress. In the 2020-2021 dermatology application cycle, only 4.8% of applicants identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 7.8% identified as Black or African American.² The American Academy of Dermatology took an active role in promoting diversity by creating a task force in 2018 to increase the exposure and recruitment into dermatology of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine.2 As standards for diversity are met in dermatology, we will have the wonderful opportunity to welcome even more diversity into our lives.

Listening, showing curiosity about your co-residents’ lives outside of work, and asking questions can help build respect, friendships, and camaraderie. Ask your co-residents what makes them happy and what their goals are in residency. Finding common goals and cultivating the mindset that you all work together to achieve your goals is key to the success of a residency class. Now that we discussed accepting and welcoming differences, how do you foster camaraderie in a social setting?

Establish a Social Committee

As a class, consider 1 or 2 residents who are always excited to try new activities such as attend restaurant openings, exercise classes, concerts, or movie nights. Consider nominating these co-residents along with one attending to be social chairs of your residency. The social chairs should meet and establish at least 1 social event per season, with 4 total for the academic year. There are only 2 rules with social events: (1) they must be held outside of clinic, and (2) everyone should try their best to attend.

Social chairs should try to prioritize a location-specific event that allows the residents who are not from the area to experience something local, which can be anything from apple picking at an orchard in the fall to beach volleyball in the summer. Planning these parties gives everyone an event to look forward to and a chance to spend time together and grow closer. The memories and inside jokes that arise from these outings are invaluable and increase joy inside and outside of clinic.

Utilize Social Media

Another project can be developing a social media account for your program with the approval of your faculty. @unmcdermatology, @uwderm, and @gwdermres can help foster social relationships by establishing a lighthearted space to celebrate the residency’s achievements, new publications, volunteer events, or social gatherings.

Encourage Local and National Conference Attendance

All residents should be encouraged to submit abstracts to local and national conferences and attend with their co-residents. Conferences are peak opportunities to foster camaraderie within residency classes, as they involve a sense of togetherness in the specialty along with the excitement of traveling to a new city and meeting other like-minded individuals. Conferences allow collaboration within the specialty on a national level and foster relationships between residency programs.

In addition, national groups such as the Women’s Dermatologic Society, the Skin of Color Society, and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force meet at the national conferences and discuss their next initiatives and projects. Joining a society of your interest can lead to many new networks and relationships you may not have had before. Even if you are not interested in specializing after general dermatology, consider attending a surgery, dermatopathology, or pediatric or cosmetic dermatology conference to learn more about the field from the experts.

Repair Conflicts and Build a Climate of Collaboration

Conflicts and disagreements unfortunately are inevitable during residency. Whether they involve planning vacation times or coordinating call schedules, everyone will not agree on every decision. Learning how to handle and approach conflict with co-residents is of utmost importance to maintaining the hard work you have put in to create trust, camaraderie, and a good social atmosphere. If you are having an issue with a circumstance involving a co-resident, holding a grudge will only sour your experience and the experience of others. Talking to your co-resident directly about your concerns before escalating the issue to a chief resident or faculty member is a great start. Consider asking them about their thought process and show concern for their point of view. Listen to them openly before going into your preferences. It is important to remember that working as a team requires sacrifices, and sometimes you will not be satisfied with the outcome of a conflict.

It also is important to remember that feelings change, and an issue you feel you must address immediately can wait to be addressed at a better time when you have calmed down. You may even find that you decide not to address it at all. At the end of the day, if a conflict cannot be worked out between those involved, consider confiding in a chief resident or a faculty mentor for advice on the next steps to take to resolve the problem. Ultimately, having a good foundation of respect and strong bonds with your residents will help tremendously when conflicts arise.

Final Thoughts

Fostering camaraderie in residency will improve the overall experience and lives of the residents, as well as the experience of the faculty, staff, and patients by the trickle-down effect. Creating a cheerful and fun atmosphere filled with inside jokes and excitement regarding upcoming social events or conferences will certainly result in a time you will cherish for the rest of your life.

Change is inevitable in residency as well as in life. Every year on July 1, the atmosphere and social structure of residencies change with the new postgraduate year 2 class. Each class brings a unique perspective and energy. Residents come together from different backgrounds and life situations. Some residents are single, some are engaged or married, and some are starting or expanding their families. Some residents will have prior careers, others will have graduate degrees or expertise in various fields. They will have different ethnic backgrounds, religious and/or spiritual beliefs, familial upbringings, personalities, and methods of communicating. These differences all are important to consider when developing a mindset of inclusion and camaraderie. As residents start their journey together, it is important to remember that residency is a team endeavor. The principles of teamwork apply directly to residents and are founded on creating a climate of trust and building strong relationships with one another._¹ Trust is the foundation of good relationships in the workplace; it allows people to communicate freely and foster the belief that everyone is working for each other’s best interests. Being open and sharing knowledge about networking opportunities, scholarships, and research projects is one way to foster collaboration and trust in residency.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in dermatology is a work in progress. In the 2020-2021 dermatology application cycle, only 4.8% of applicants identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 7.8% identified as Black or African American.² The American Academy of Dermatology took an active role in promoting diversity by creating a task force in 2018 to increase the exposure and recruitment into dermatology of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine.2 As standards for diversity are met in dermatology, we will have the wonderful opportunity to welcome even more diversity into our lives.

Listening, showing curiosity about your co-residents’ lives outside of work, and asking questions can help build respect, friendships, and camaraderie. Ask your co-residents what makes them happy and what their goals are in residency. Finding common goals and cultivating the mindset that you all work together to achieve your goals is key to the success of a residency class. Now that we discussed accepting and welcoming differences, how do you foster camaraderie in a social setting?

Establish a Social Committee

As a class, consider 1 or 2 residents who are always excited to try new activities such as attend restaurant openings, exercise classes, concerts, or movie nights. Consider nominating these co-residents along with one attending to be social chairs of your residency. The social chairs should meet and establish at least 1 social event per season, with 4 total for the academic year. There are only 2 rules with social events: (1) they must be held outside of clinic, and (2) everyone should try their best to attend.

Social chairs should try to prioritize a location-specific event that allows the residents who are not from the area to experience something local, which can be anything from apple picking at an orchard in the fall to beach volleyball in the summer. Planning these parties gives everyone an event to look forward to and a chance to spend time together and grow closer. The memories and inside jokes that arise from these outings are invaluable and increase joy inside and outside of clinic.

Utilize Social Media

Another project can be developing a social media account for your program with the approval of your faculty. @unmcdermatology, @uwderm, and @gwdermres can help foster social relationships by establishing a lighthearted space to celebrate the residency’s achievements, new publications, volunteer events, or social gatherings.

Encourage Local and National Conference Attendance

All residents should be encouraged to submit abstracts to local and national conferences and attend with their co-residents. Conferences are peak opportunities to foster camaraderie within residency classes, as they involve a sense of togetherness in the specialty along with the excitement of traveling to a new city and meeting other like-minded individuals. Conferences allow collaboration within the specialty on a national level and foster relationships between residency programs.

In addition, national groups such as the Women’s Dermatologic Society, the Skin of Color Society, and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force meet at the national conferences and discuss their next initiatives and projects. Joining a society of your interest can lead to many new networks and relationships you may not have had before. Even if you are not interested in specializing after general dermatology, consider attending a surgery, dermatopathology, or pediatric or cosmetic dermatology conference to learn more about the field from the experts.

Repair Conflicts and Build a Climate of Collaboration

Conflicts and disagreements unfortunately are inevitable during residency. Whether they involve planning vacation times or coordinating call schedules, everyone will not agree on every decision. Learning how to handle and approach conflict with co-residents is of utmost importance to maintaining the hard work you have put in to create trust, camaraderie, and a good social atmosphere. If you are having an issue with a circumstance involving a co-resident, holding a grudge will only sour your experience and the experience of others. Talking to your co-resident directly about your concerns before escalating the issue to a chief resident or faculty member is a great start. Consider asking them about their thought process and show concern for their point of view. Listen to them openly before going into your preferences. It is important to remember that working as a team requires sacrifices, and sometimes you will not be satisfied with the outcome of a conflict.

It also is important to remember that feelings change, and an issue you feel you must address immediately can wait to be addressed at a better time when you have calmed down. You may even find that you decide not to address it at all. At the end of the day, if a conflict cannot be worked out between those involved, consider confiding in a chief resident or a faculty mentor for advice on the next steps to take to resolve the problem. Ultimately, having a good foundation of respect and strong bonds with your residents will help tremendously when conflicts arise.

Final Thoughts

Fostering camaraderie in residency will improve the overall experience and lives of the residents, as well as the experience of the faculty, staff, and patients by the trickle-down effect. Creating a cheerful and fun atmosphere filled with inside jokes and excitement regarding upcoming social events or conferences will certainly result in a time you will cherish for the rest of your life.

Change is inevitable in residency as well as in life. Every year on July 1, the atmosphere and social structure of residencies change with the new postgraduate year 2 class. Each class brings a unique perspective and energy. Residents come together from different backgrounds and life situations. Some residents are single, some are engaged or married, and some are starting or expanding their families. Some residents will have prior careers, others will have graduate degrees or expertise in various fields. They will have different ethnic backgrounds, religious and/or spiritual beliefs, familial upbringings, personalities, and methods of communicating. These differences all are important to consider when developing a mindset of inclusion and camaraderie. As residents start their journey together, it is important to remember that residency is a team endeavor. The principles of teamwork apply directly to residents and are founded on creating a climate of trust and building strong relationships with one another._¹ Trust is the foundation of good relationships in the workplace; it allows people to communicate freely and foster the belief that everyone is working for each other’s best interests. Being open and sharing knowledge about networking opportunities, scholarships, and research projects is one way to foster collaboration and trust in residency.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in dermatology is a work in progress. In the 2020-2021 dermatology application cycle, only 4.8% of applicants identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 7.8% identified as Black or African American.² The American Academy of Dermatology took an active role in promoting diversity by creating a task force in 2018 to increase the exposure and recruitment into dermatology of medical students who are underrepresented in medicine.2 As standards for diversity are met in dermatology, we will have the wonderful opportunity to welcome even more diversity into our lives.

Listening, showing curiosity about your co-residents’ lives outside of work, and asking questions can help build respect, friendships, and camaraderie. Ask your co-residents what makes them happy and what their goals are in residency. Finding common goals and cultivating the mindset that you all work together to achieve your goals is key to the success of a residency class. Now that we discussed accepting and welcoming differences, how do you foster camaraderie in a social setting?

Establish a Social Committee

As a class, consider 1 or 2 residents who are always excited to try new activities such as attend restaurant openings, exercise classes, concerts, or movie nights. Consider nominating these co-residents along with one attending to be social chairs of your residency. The social chairs should meet and establish at least 1 social event per season, with 4 total for the academic year. There are only 2 rules with social events: (1) they must be held outside of clinic, and (2) everyone should try their best to attend.

Social chairs should try to prioritize a location-specific event that allows the residents who are not from the area to experience something local, which can be anything from apple picking at an orchard in the fall to beach volleyball in the summer. Planning these parties gives everyone an event to look forward to and a chance to spend time together and grow closer. The memories and inside jokes that arise from these outings are invaluable and increase joy inside and outside of clinic.

Utilize Social Media

Another project can be developing a social media account for your program with the approval of your faculty. @unmcdermatology, @uwderm, and @gwdermres can help foster social relationships by establishing a lighthearted space to celebrate the residency’s achievements, new publications, volunteer events, or social gatherings.

Encourage Local and National Conference Attendance

All residents should be encouraged to submit abstracts to local and national conferences and attend with their co-residents. Conferences are peak opportunities to foster camaraderie within residency classes, as they involve a sense of togetherness in the specialty along with the excitement of traveling to a new city and meeting other like-minded individuals. Conferences allow collaboration within the specialty on a national level and foster relationships between residency programs.

In addition, national groups such as the Women’s Dermatologic Society, the Skin of Color Society, and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion task force meet at the national conferences and discuss their next initiatives and projects. Joining a society of your interest can lead to many new networks and relationships you may not have had before. Even if you are not interested in specializing after general dermatology, consider attending a surgery, dermatopathology, or pediatric or cosmetic dermatology conference to learn more about the field from the experts.

Repair Conflicts and Build a Climate of Collaboration

Conflicts and disagreements unfortunately are inevitable during residency. Whether they involve planning vacation times or coordinating call schedules, everyone will not agree on every decision. Learning how to handle and approach conflict with co-residents is of utmost importance to maintaining the hard work you have put in to create trust, camaraderie, and a good social atmosphere. If you are having an issue with a circumstance involving a co-resident, holding a grudge will only sour your experience and the experience of others. Talking to your co-resident directly about your concerns before escalating the issue to a chief resident or faculty member is a great start. Consider asking them about their thought process and show concern for their point of view. Listen to them openly before going into your preferences. It is important to remember that working as a team requires sacrifices, and sometimes you will not be satisfied with the outcome of a conflict.

It also is important to remember that feelings change, and an issue you feel you must address immediately can wait to be addressed at a better time when you have calmed down. You may even find that you decide not to address it at all. At the end of the day, if a conflict cannot be worked out between those involved, consider confiding in a chief resident or a faculty mentor for advice on the next steps to take to resolve the problem. Ultimately, having a good foundation of respect and strong bonds with your residents will help tremendously when conflicts arise.

Final Thoughts

Fostering camaraderie in residency will improve the overall experience and lives of the residents, as well as the experience of the faculty, staff, and patients by the trickle-down effect. Creating a cheerful and fun atmosphere filled with inside jokes and excitement regarding upcoming social events or conferences will certainly result in a time you will cherish for the rest of your life.

Low energy–density diets that are based either on potatoes or beans similarly reduced insulin resistance in adults with poor blood glucose control, according to a controlled feeding study in 36 individuals.

PxHere

Potatoes have gotten a bad rap for their high glycemic index, but they have little fat and a low energy density, wrote the study investigators. In fact, “cooling of gelatinized potatoes generates appreciable levels of slowly digested starch (resistant starch type 3) and substantially lowers the blood glucose response that potatoes elicit.”

“There is a view that potatoes are a less healthy plant food, but there is very little empirical data from randomized trials to support this view,” senior investigator John P. Kirwan, PhD, said in an interview.

Dry beans and peas (known as pulses) also contain resistant starch that improves insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance, and multiple studies support pulses as part of a low-glycemic diet to improve glucose control in adults, the researchers explained, but because the density of food often guides how much people eat, they hypothesized that potatoes could substitute for beans and provide similar glucose control benefits.

In a study published in the Journal of Medicinal Food, the researchers randomized 36 adults aged 18-60 years with insulin resistance to 8 weeks of a low energy–density diet (1 kcal/g) high in either potatoes or beans. The baseline body mass index ranged from 25 to 40 kg/m². Insulin resistance was defined using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) with a score greater than 2.

The controlled diet consisted of 50%-55% carbohydrates, 30%-35% fats, and 15%-20% protein. Each meal in the potato group included a side of potatoes, and each meal in the bean group included a side of beans.

The primary outcome was the mean change in blood glucose concentration; the researchers also assessed weight loss.

A total of 14 individuals in the potato group and 17 in the bean group completed the study; but data from the 18 individuals in each group were included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

Among study completers, HOMA-IR in the bean group showed an average decrease of 1.4 from baseline (P = .02 ); a similar decrease of 1.3 occurred in the potato group (P < .05) with no significant difference between the two diets.

Overall compliance with both diets was roughly 88%. Body weight reductions were similar in both groups and significantly reduced from baseline over the study period, with average reductions in intent-to-treat analysis of 5.82 kg in the potato group and 4.0 kg in the bean group. BMI also was significantly reduced from baseline in both potato and bean groups (2.04 kg/m² and 1.35 kg/m², respectively). Although baseline differences were not significant, “BMI at baseline was higher and the reduction in response to the treatment was significantly greater in the potato diet compared with the bean diet,” the researchers noted. The effect on blood glucose response was not significantly different between the two groups or from baseline, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small size, relatively short study period, and controlled nature of the study diet, the researchers noted. “The addition of a typical Western diet would have enhanced our understanding of the effect of low energy–dense diets on metabolic outcomes,” they noted in their discussion.

However, both diets led to a reduction in body weight, and the low energy density of both potato and bean diets promoted weight loss without affecting appetite or requiring calorie restriction, the researchers explained. Therefore, “this weight loss if sustained over time could have a substantial impact on body weight,” they said.

“We hypothesized that there would be equivalence between the potato and bean diet and this hypothesis proved to be correct,” said Dr. Kirwan, of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, though small, the study was very well-controlled, Dr. Kirwan emphasized. “Clinicians ought to consider the health benefits of the potato when it is cooked and served appropriately.”

Looking ahead, larger randomized controlled trials with additional control arms, longer time of at least 12 weeks, and different patient populations are needed, Dr. Kirwan added.
 

Findings mitigate food myths

The debate continues about whether there are foods that are “good” or “evil;” or foods that one “should not eat” or “should eat,” said Amy Rothberg, MD, associate professor of internal medicine and of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“This study dispels the myth that incorporating a small portion of potato into the diet (although these are not potatoes that are fried, or are topped with cheese, bacon, sour cream, etc.) results in deleterious metabolic outcomes when compared to a diet that is comprised of beans (pulses) as part of a low energy–dense diet,” she explained.

“The diet in both groups was of low energy density, which has been shown to result in fewer calories consumed, weight loss, and improvement in insulin resistance,” so the similarity in results was not so surprising, said Dr. Rothberg.  

For the clinical takeaway, Dr. Rothberg agreed with the study authors: “Clinicians may counsel their patients that they can still consume a small potato (with the caveat above regarding cooking methods and toppings) as part of a balanced meal so long as they are keeping their overall calories low and not exceeding their metabolic requirements based on body weight/BMI,” she said.

As for additional research, studies with a longer time frame and a larger and more diverse study population are needed, including populations with common insulin resistance comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Rothberg noted.
 

Consumer considerations, with caveats

The key message for consumers is that, “based on this very small study of short duration, consuming a small portion of potato as part of an overall balanced, low-energy diet did not produce adverse effects on glucose or insulin when compared to a diet of pulses known to have favorable effects on glucose and insulin,” Dr. Rothberg told this news organization. However, “consumers should note that, although the results from this small study are encouraging, it would be premature to extrapolate the findings from this study to other populations,” she said. Also, keep in mind that the study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research, although the authors stated that none of the funders (Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health) had any role in the design, analysis, or writing of the article, she added.

The study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health, which funds the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center. The researchers and Dr. Rothberg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Low energy–density diets that are based either on potatoes or beans similarly reduced insulin resistance in adults with poor blood glucose control, according to a controlled feeding study in 36 individuals.

PxHere

Potatoes have gotten a bad rap for their high glycemic index, but they have little fat and a low energy density, wrote the study investigators. In fact, “cooling of gelatinized potatoes generates appreciable levels of slowly digested starch (resistant starch type 3) and substantially lowers the blood glucose response that potatoes elicit.”

“There is a view that potatoes are a less healthy plant food, but there is very little empirical data from randomized trials to support this view,” senior investigator John P. Kirwan, PhD, said in an interview.

Dry beans and peas (known as pulses) also contain resistant starch that improves insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance, and multiple studies support pulses as part of a low-glycemic diet to improve glucose control in adults, the researchers explained, but because the density of food often guides how much people eat, they hypothesized that potatoes could substitute for beans and provide similar glucose control benefits.

In a study published in the Journal of Medicinal Food, the researchers randomized 36 adults aged 18-60 years with insulin resistance to 8 weeks of a low energy–density diet (1 kcal/g) high in either potatoes or beans. The baseline body mass index ranged from 25 to 40 kg/m². Insulin resistance was defined using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) with a score greater than 2.

The controlled diet consisted of 50%-55% carbohydrates, 30%-35% fats, and 15%-20% protein. Each meal in the potato group included a side of potatoes, and each meal in the bean group included a side of beans.

The primary outcome was the mean change in blood glucose concentration; the researchers also assessed weight loss.

A total of 14 individuals in the potato group and 17 in the bean group completed the study; but data from the 18 individuals in each group were included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

Among study completers, HOMA-IR in the bean group showed an average decrease of 1.4 from baseline (P = .02 ); a similar decrease of 1.3 occurred in the potato group (P < .05) with no significant difference between the two diets.

Overall compliance with both diets was roughly 88%. Body weight reductions were similar in both groups and significantly reduced from baseline over the study period, with average reductions in intent-to-treat analysis of 5.82 kg in the potato group and 4.0 kg in the bean group. BMI also was significantly reduced from baseline in both potato and bean groups (2.04 kg/m² and 1.35 kg/m², respectively). Although baseline differences were not significant, “BMI at baseline was higher and the reduction in response to the treatment was significantly greater in the potato diet compared with the bean diet,” the researchers noted. The effect on blood glucose response was not significantly different between the two groups or from baseline, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small size, relatively short study period, and controlled nature of the study diet, the researchers noted. “The addition of a typical Western diet would have enhanced our understanding of the effect of low energy–dense diets on metabolic outcomes,” they noted in their discussion.

However, both diets led to a reduction in body weight, and the low energy density of both potato and bean diets promoted weight loss without affecting appetite or requiring calorie restriction, the researchers explained. Therefore, “this weight loss if sustained over time could have a substantial impact on body weight,” they said.

“We hypothesized that there would be equivalence between the potato and bean diet and this hypothesis proved to be correct,” said Dr. Kirwan, of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, though small, the study was very well-controlled, Dr. Kirwan emphasized. “Clinicians ought to consider the health benefits of the potato when it is cooked and served appropriately.”

Looking ahead, larger randomized controlled trials with additional control arms, longer time of at least 12 weeks, and different patient populations are needed, Dr. Kirwan added.
 

Findings mitigate food myths

The debate continues about whether there are foods that are “good” or “evil;” or foods that one “should not eat” or “should eat,” said Amy Rothberg, MD, associate professor of internal medicine and of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“This study dispels the myth that incorporating a small portion of potato into the diet (although these are not potatoes that are fried, or are topped with cheese, bacon, sour cream, etc.) results in deleterious metabolic outcomes when compared to a diet that is comprised of beans (pulses) as part of a low energy–dense diet,” she explained.

“The diet in both groups was of low energy density, which has been shown to result in fewer calories consumed, weight loss, and improvement in insulin resistance,” so the similarity in results was not so surprising, said Dr. Rothberg.  

For the clinical takeaway, Dr. Rothberg agreed with the study authors: “Clinicians may counsel their patients that they can still consume a small potato (with the caveat above regarding cooking methods and toppings) as part of a balanced meal so long as they are keeping their overall calories low and not exceeding their metabolic requirements based on body weight/BMI,” she said.

As for additional research, studies with a longer time frame and a larger and more diverse study population are needed, including populations with common insulin resistance comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Rothberg noted.
 

Consumer considerations, with caveats

The key message for consumers is that, “based on this very small study of short duration, consuming a small portion of potato as part of an overall balanced, low-energy diet did not produce adverse effects on glucose or insulin when compared to a diet of pulses known to have favorable effects on glucose and insulin,” Dr. Rothberg told this news organization. However, “consumers should note that, although the results from this small study are encouraging, it would be premature to extrapolate the findings from this study to other populations,” she said. Also, keep in mind that the study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research, although the authors stated that none of the funders (Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health) had any role in the design, analysis, or writing of the article, she added.

The study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health, which funds the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center. The researchers and Dr. Rothberg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Low energy–density diets that are based either on potatoes or beans similarly reduced insulin resistance in adults with poor blood glucose control, according to a controlled feeding study in 36 individuals.

PxHere

Potatoes have gotten a bad rap for their high glycemic index, but they have little fat and a low energy density, wrote the study investigators. In fact, “cooling of gelatinized potatoes generates appreciable levels of slowly digested starch (resistant starch type 3) and substantially lowers the blood glucose response that potatoes elicit.”

“There is a view that potatoes are a less healthy plant food, but there is very little empirical data from randomized trials to support this view,” senior investigator John P. Kirwan, PhD, said in an interview.

Dry beans and peas (known as pulses) also contain resistant starch that improves insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance, and multiple studies support pulses as part of a low-glycemic diet to improve glucose control in adults, the researchers explained, but because the density of food often guides how much people eat, they hypothesized that potatoes could substitute for beans and provide similar glucose control benefits.

In a study published in the Journal of Medicinal Food, the researchers randomized 36 adults aged 18-60 years with insulin resistance to 8 weeks of a low energy–density diet (1 kcal/g) high in either potatoes or beans. The baseline body mass index ranged from 25 to 40 kg/m². Insulin resistance was defined using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) with a score greater than 2.

The controlled diet consisted of 50%-55% carbohydrates, 30%-35% fats, and 15%-20% protein. Each meal in the potato group included a side of potatoes, and each meal in the bean group included a side of beans.

The primary outcome was the mean change in blood glucose concentration; the researchers also assessed weight loss.

A total of 14 individuals in the potato group and 17 in the bean group completed the study; but data from the 18 individuals in each group were included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

Among study completers, HOMA-IR in the bean group showed an average decrease of 1.4 from baseline (P = .02 ); a similar decrease of 1.3 occurred in the potato group (P < .05) with no significant difference between the two diets.

Overall compliance with both diets was roughly 88%. Body weight reductions were similar in both groups and significantly reduced from baseline over the study period, with average reductions in intent-to-treat analysis of 5.82 kg in the potato group and 4.0 kg in the bean group. BMI also was significantly reduced from baseline in both potato and bean groups (2.04 kg/m² and 1.35 kg/m², respectively). Although baseline differences were not significant, “BMI at baseline was higher and the reduction in response to the treatment was significantly greater in the potato diet compared with the bean diet,” the researchers noted. The effect on blood glucose response was not significantly different between the two groups or from baseline, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small size, relatively short study period, and controlled nature of the study diet, the researchers noted. “The addition of a typical Western diet would have enhanced our understanding of the effect of low energy–dense diets on metabolic outcomes,” they noted in their discussion.

However, both diets led to a reduction in body weight, and the low energy density of both potato and bean diets promoted weight loss without affecting appetite or requiring calorie restriction, the researchers explained. Therefore, “this weight loss if sustained over time could have a substantial impact on body weight,” they said.

“We hypothesized that there would be equivalence between the potato and bean diet and this hypothesis proved to be correct,” said Dr. Kirwan, of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, though small, the study was very well-controlled, Dr. Kirwan emphasized. “Clinicians ought to consider the health benefits of the potato when it is cooked and served appropriately.”

Looking ahead, larger randomized controlled trials with additional control arms, longer time of at least 12 weeks, and different patient populations are needed, Dr. Kirwan added.
 

Findings mitigate food myths

The debate continues about whether there are foods that are “good” or “evil;” or foods that one “should not eat” or “should eat,” said Amy Rothberg, MD, associate professor of internal medicine and of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“This study dispels the myth that incorporating a small portion of potato into the diet (although these are not potatoes that are fried, or are topped with cheese, bacon, sour cream, etc.) results in deleterious metabolic outcomes when compared to a diet that is comprised of beans (pulses) as part of a low energy–dense diet,” she explained.

“The diet in both groups was of low energy density, which has been shown to result in fewer calories consumed, weight loss, and improvement in insulin resistance,” so the similarity in results was not so surprising, said Dr. Rothberg.  

For the clinical takeaway, Dr. Rothberg agreed with the study authors: “Clinicians may counsel their patients that they can still consume a small potato (with the caveat above regarding cooking methods and toppings) as part of a balanced meal so long as they are keeping their overall calories low and not exceeding their metabolic requirements based on body weight/BMI,” she said.

As for additional research, studies with a longer time frame and a larger and more diverse study population are needed, including populations with common insulin resistance comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Rothberg noted.
 

Consumer considerations, with caveats

The key message for consumers is that, “based on this very small study of short duration, consuming a small portion of potato as part of an overall balanced, low-energy diet did not produce adverse effects on glucose or insulin when compared to a diet of pulses known to have favorable effects on glucose and insulin,” Dr. Rothberg told this news organization. However, “consumers should note that, although the results from this small study are encouraging, it would be premature to extrapolate the findings from this study to other populations,” she said. Also, keep in mind that the study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research, although the authors stated that none of the funders (Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health) had any role in the design, analysis, or writing of the article, she added.

The study was supported in part by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education and the National Institutes of Health, which funds the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center. The researchers and Dr. Rothberg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from a phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from 6 weeks down to 3 weeks. And, they showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant at a press conference held at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology where the findings were presented.

“This is substantially more convenient. It is cost effective, both for the health care system and for individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day. They’re taking time off of work, they have to arrange for childcare, and they have to arrange for transportation. So this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

The study was presented by Frank A. Vicini, MD, FASTRO, a radiation oncologist with GenesisCare, Farmington Hills, Mich.

“One of the things I think that was surprising is I think all of us were thinking that this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vincini showed, over time it was equally effective and with minimal toxicity, and cosmesis over time was stable, and that’s important. Importantly, that included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It is an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized, controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation is in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice is for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds a week to a week and a half to treatment length.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar, with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients; 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation as compared to a sequential boost, results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient-rated cosmesis, no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis, and delivering the entire treatment even at high risk patients in 3 weeks. Just as critical, the use of target volume–based radiation planning for 3-D [three-dimensional] conformal or [intensity-modulated radiation therapy] whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” said Dr. Vincini during the press conference.

The study was grant funded. Neither Dr. Vincini nor Dr. Horst had relevant financial disclosures.

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor