While this month’s journal scan for clinical research reviews in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may not reveal a landmark paper, there certainly are novel findings worthy of note.  In particular researchers Halabitska and Babinets¹ from Ternopil National Medical University in Ukraine¹ looked at the impact of NSAID use on fecal elastase and nutritional parameters in patients with baseline EPI.

The researchers’ primary aim is based on the idea that osteoarthritis (OA) accounts for a significant global disease burden, particularly in advanced age with other concomitant comorbidities, yet most attention is paid to the study of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related enteropathies of the gastrointestinal tract after NSAID use. Researchers state, “however, no studies have been found to study the effect of NSAIDs on the progression of EPI and the development of trophological disorders, especially under conditions of primary OA comorbidity with diseases accompanied by EPI.”

This study included 87 adult patients with primary OA along with EPI and 30 healthy controls. The patients in the interventional group received a 14-day course of NSAIDs which are officially recommended for the treatment of pain in primary OA (15 mg/day meloxicam, 200 mg/day nimesulide, 150 mg/day diclofenac sodium).  Fecal α-elastase levels were analyzed before and after NSAID treatment in patients with primary OA and concomitant EPI. After NSAID treatment, there was a statistically significant decrease in EPI levels, which was most pronounced in the subgroup of patients with EPI from chronic pancreatitis. Further, the levels of trophologic parameters (magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, albumin, and vitamins A, E, and K) decreased significantly after NSAID treatment (all P < .05).

The authors concluded that NSAID use likely worsens EPI and nutritional parameters in patients with primary osteoarthritis with concomitant EPI at baseline. This is potentially practice changing, which might suggest that a closer monitoring of EPI parameters during a course of NSAID treatment is needed. Patients with EPI are of course already at risk of fat soluble vitamin deficiencies, and it may provide only more reason to check and replenish micronutrients and vitamin levels after a course of NSAID therapy. 

References

1. Halabitska IM et al. Different consequences of the treatment of osteoarthritis in gastrointestinal comorbidity with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Fam Med Prim Care Rev. 2021 (Oct 5);23(4):10.5114/fmpcr.2021.108207.

While this month’s journal scan for clinical research reviews in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may not reveal a landmark paper, there certainly are novel findings worthy of note.  In particular researchers Halabitska and Babinets¹ from Ternopil National Medical University in Ukraine¹ looked at the impact of NSAID use on fecal elastase and nutritional parameters in patients with baseline EPI.

The researchers’ primary aim is based on the idea that osteoarthritis (OA) accounts for a significant global disease burden, particularly in advanced age with other concomitant comorbidities, yet most attention is paid to the study of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related enteropathies of the gastrointestinal tract after NSAID use. Researchers state, “however, no studies have been found to study the effect of NSAIDs on the progression of EPI and the development of trophological disorders, especially under conditions of primary OA comorbidity with diseases accompanied by EPI.”

This study included 87 adult patients with primary OA along with EPI and 30 healthy controls. The patients in the interventional group received a 14-day course of NSAIDs which are officially recommended for the treatment of pain in primary OA (15 mg/day meloxicam, 200 mg/day nimesulide, 150 mg/day diclofenac sodium).  Fecal α-elastase levels were analyzed before and after NSAID treatment in patients with primary OA and concomitant EPI. After NSAID treatment, there was a statistically significant decrease in EPI levels, which was most pronounced in the subgroup of patients with EPI from chronic pancreatitis. Further, the levels of trophologic parameters (magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, albumin, and vitamins A, E, and K) decreased significantly after NSAID treatment (all P < .05).

The authors concluded that NSAID use likely worsens EPI and nutritional parameters in patients with primary osteoarthritis with concomitant EPI at baseline. This is potentially practice changing, which might suggest that a closer monitoring of EPI parameters during a course of NSAID treatment is needed. Patients with EPI are of course already at risk of fat soluble vitamin deficiencies, and it may provide only more reason to check and replenish micronutrients and vitamin levels after a course of NSAID therapy. 

References

1. Halabitska IM et al. Different consequences of the treatment of osteoarthritis in gastrointestinal comorbidity with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Fam Med Prim Care Rev. 2021 (Oct 5);23(4):10.5114/fmpcr.2021.108207.

While this month’s journal scan for clinical research reviews in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may not reveal a landmark paper, there certainly are novel findings worthy of note.  In particular researchers Halabitska and Babinets¹ from Ternopil National Medical University in Ukraine¹ looked at the impact of NSAID use on fecal elastase and nutritional parameters in patients with baseline EPI.

The researchers’ primary aim is based on the idea that osteoarthritis (OA) accounts for a significant global disease burden, particularly in advanced age with other concomitant comorbidities, yet most attention is paid to the study of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related enteropathies of the gastrointestinal tract after NSAID use. Researchers state, “however, no studies have been found to study the effect of NSAIDs on the progression of EPI and the development of trophological disorders, especially under conditions of primary OA comorbidity with diseases accompanied by EPI.”

This study included 87 adult patients with primary OA along with EPI and 30 healthy controls. The patients in the interventional group received a 14-day course of NSAIDs which are officially recommended for the treatment of pain in primary OA (15 mg/day meloxicam, 200 mg/day nimesulide, 150 mg/day diclofenac sodium).  Fecal α-elastase levels were analyzed before and after NSAID treatment in patients with primary OA and concomitant EPI. After NSAID treatment, there was a statistically significant decrease in EPI levels, which was most pronounced in the subgroup of patients with EPI from chronic pancreatitis. Further, the levels of trophologic parameters (magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, albumin, and vitamins A, E, and K) decreased significantly after NSAID treatment (all P < .05).

The authors concluded that NSAID use likely worsens EPI and nutritional parameters in patients with primary osteoarthritis with concomitant EPI at baseline. This is potentially practice changing, which might suggest that a closer monitoring of EPI parameters during a course of NSAID treatment is needed. Patients with EPI are of course already at risk of fat soluble vitamin deficiencies, and it may provide only more reason to check and replenish micronutrients and vitamin levels after a course of NSAID therapy. 

References

1. Halabitska IM et al. Different consequences of the treatment of osteoarthritis in gastrointestinal comorbidity with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Fam Med Prim Care Rev. 2021 (Oct 5);23(4):10.5114/fmpcr.2021.108207.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email ([email protected]).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email ([email protected]).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am fortunate to receive the baton from Charles Kahi, MD, in facilitating the fascinating and timely debates that have characterized the AGA Perspective series. Favorable reimbursement changes and the need for social distancing fast-tracked telemedicine, a care delivery model that had been slowly evolving.

In this month’s Perspective column, Dr. Hernaez and Dr. Vaughn discuss the pros and cons of telemedicine in GI. Is it the new office visit? Or simply just good enough for when we really need it? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on the AGA Community forum as well as by email ([email protected]).
 

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, is assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

It holds promise

BY RUBEN HERNAEZ, MD, MPH, PHD

It was around January 2020, when COVID-19 was something far, far away, and not particularly worrisome. I was performing a routine care visit of one of my out-of-state patients waitlisted for a liver transplant. All was going fine until he stated, “Hey doc, while I appreciate your time and visits, these travels to Houston are quite inconvenient for my family and me: It is a logistical ordeal, and my wife is always afraid of catching something in the airplane. Could you do the same remotely such as a videoconference?” And just like that, it sparked my interest in how to maintain his liver transplant care from a distance. The Federation of State Medical Boards defines telemedicine as “the practice of medicine using electronic communication, information technology, or other means between a physician in one location, and a patient in another location, with or without an intervening health care provider.¹ What my patient was asking was to use a mode of telemedicine – a video visit – to receive the same quality of care. He brought up three critical points that I will discuss further: access to specialty care (such as transplant hepatology), reduction of costs (time and money), and improved patient satisfaction.

Arora and colleagues pioneered the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) project, providing complex specialty medical care to underserved populations through a model of team-based interdisciplinary development in hepatitis C infection treatment in underserved communities, with cure rates similar to the university settings.¹ The University of Michigan–Veterans Affairs Medical Center used a similar approach, called Specialty Care Access Network–Extension of Community Healthcare Outcome (SCAN‐ECHO). They showed that telemedicine improved survival in 513 patients evaluated in this program compared to regular care (hazard ratio [HR]of 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.36‐0.81, P = .003).² So the evidence backs my patient’s request in providing advanced medical care using a telemedicine platform.

An extra benefit of telemedicine in the current climate crisis is reducing the carbon footprint: There’s no need to travel. Telemedicine has been shown to be cost effective: A study of claims data from Jefferson Health reported that patients who received care from an on-demand telemedicine program had net cost savings per telemedicine visit between $19 and $121 per visit compared with traditional in-person visits.³ Using telemonitoring, a form of telemedicine, Bloom et al. showed in 100 simulated patients with cirrhosis and ascites over a 6-month horizon that standard of care was $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. The net savings of telemonitoring was always superior in different clinical scenarios.⁴

Further, our patients significantly decrease travel time (almost instant), improve compliance with medical appointments (more flexibility), and no more headaches related to parking or getting lost around the medical campus. Not surprisingly, these perks from telemedicine are associated with patient-reported outcomes. Reed and colleagues reported patients’ experience with video telemedicine visits in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (n = 1,274) and showed that “67% generally needed to make one or more arrangements to attend an in-person office visit (55% time off from work, 29% coverage for another activity or responsibility, 15% child care or caregiving, and 10% another person to accompany them)”; in contrast, 87% reported a video visit as “more convenient for me,” and 93% stated that “my video visit adequately addressed my needs.”⁵ In liver transplantation, John et al. showed that, in the Veterans Health Administration, telehealth was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs. 249 days), reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01) in a study of 232 patients with advanced cirrhosis.⁶

So, should I change my approach to patients undergoing care for chronic liver/gastrointestinal diseases? I think so. Telemedicine and its tools provide clear benefits to our patients by increasing access to care, time and money savings, and satisfaction. I am fortunate to work within the largest healthcare network in the Nation – the Veterans Health Administration – and therefore, I can cross state lines to provide medical care/advice using the video-visit tool (VA VideoConnect). One could argue that some patients might find it challenging to access telemedicine appointments, but with adequate coaching or support from our teams, telemedicine visits are a click away.

Going back to my patient, I embraced his request and coached him on using VA VideoConnect. We can continue his waitlist medical care in the following months despite the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. I can assess his asterixis and ascites via his cellphone; his primary care team fills in the vitals and labs to complete a virtual visit. There’s no question in my mind that telemedicine is here to stay and that we will continue to adapt e-health tools into video visits (for example, integrating vitals, measurement of frailty, and remote monitoring). The future of our specialty is here, and I envision we will eventually have home-based hospitalizations with daily virtual rounds.
 

Dr. Hernaez is with the section of gastroenterology and the Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology in the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Arora S et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 9;364(23):2199-207.

2. Su GL et al. Hepatology. 2018 Dec;68(6):2317-24.

3. Nord G et al. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 May;37(5):890-4.

4. Bloom PP et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07013-2.

5. Reed ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug;171:222-4.

6. John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;18:1822-30.e4.

It has its limits

BY BYRON P. VAUGHN, MD, MS

The post-pandemic world will include telehealth. Technology disrupts business as usual and often brings positive change. But there are consequences. To employ telehealth into routine care equitably and effectively within a gastroenterology practice, we should consider two general questions: “Was the care I provided the same quality as if the patient was seen in person?” and more broadly, “am I satisfied with my practice’s implementation of telehealth?” This perspective will highlight several areas affecting gastroenterology care: lack of physical exam, disproportionate impact on certain populations, development of a patient-provider relationship, impact on physician well-being, and potential financial ramifications. We will all have to adapt to telemedicine to some extent. Understanding the trade-offs of this technology can help us position effectively in a gastroenterology practice.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of telemedicine is the lack of vital signs and physical exam. Determining if a patient is “sick or not” is often one of the first lessons trainees learn overnight. Vital signs and physical exam are crucial in the complex triaging that occurs when evaluating for diagnoses with potentially urgent interventions. While most outpatient gastroenterology clinics are not evaluating an acute abdomen, in the correct context, the physical exam provides important nuance and often reassurance. My personal estimate is that 90% of a diagnosis is based on the history. But without physical contact, providers may increase costly downstream diagnostic testing or referrals to the emergency department. Increasing use of at-home or wearable health technology could help but requires system investments in infrastructure to implement.

Telemedicine requires a baseline level of equipment and knowledge to participate. A variety of populations will have either a knowledge gap or technology gap. Lack of rural high-speed Internet can lead to poor video quality, inhibiting effective communication and frustrating both provider and patient. In urban areas, there is a drastic wealth divide, and some groups may have difficulty obtaining sufficient equipment to complete a video visit. Even with adequate infrastructure and equipment, certain groups may be disadvantaged because of a lack of the technological savvy or literacy needed to navigate a virtual visit. The addition of interpreter services adds complexity to communication on top of the virtual interaction. These technology and knowledge gaps can produce confusion and potentially lead to worse care.¹ Careful selection of appropriate patients for telemedicine is essential. Is the quality of care over a virtual visit the same for a business executive as that of a non-English speaking refugee?

The term “webside manner” precedes the pandemic but will be important in the lexicon of doctor-patient relationships moving forward. We routinely train physicians about the importance of small actions to improve our bedside manner, such as sitting down, reacting to body language, and making eye contact. First impressions matter in relationship building. For many of my established IBD patients, I can easily hop into a comfortable repertoire in person, virtually, or even on the phone. In addition, I know these people well enough to trust that I am providing the same level of care regardless of visit medium. However, a new patient virtual encounter requires nuance. I have met new patients while they are driving (I requested the patient park!), in public places, and at work. Despite instructions given to patients about the appropriate location for a virtual visit, the patient location is not in our control. For some patients this may increase the comfort of the visit. However, for others, it can lead to distractions or potentially limit the amount of information a patient is willing to share. Forming a patient-provider relationship virtually will require a new set of skills and specific training for many practitioners.

Telehealth can contribute to provider burnout. While a busy in-person clinic can be exhausting, I have found I can be more exhausted after a half-day of virtual clinic. There is an element of human connection that is difficult to replace online.² On top of that loss, video visits are more psychologically demanding than in-person interactions. I also spend more time in a chair, have fewer coffee breaks, and have fewer professional interactions with the clinic staff and professional colleagues. Several other micro-stressors exist in virtual care that may make “Zoom fatigue” a real occupational hazard.³

Lastly, there are implications on reimbursement with telehealth. In Minnesota, a 2015 telemedicine law required private and state employee health plans to provide the same coverage for telemedicine as in-person visits, although patients had to drive to a clinic or facility to use secure telehealth equipment and have vital signs taken. With the pandemic, this stipulation is waived, and it seems likely to become permanent. However, reimbursement questions will arise, as there is a perception that a 30-minute telephone call should not cost as much as a 30-minute in-person visit, regardless of the content of the conversation.

We will have to learn to move forward with telehealth. The strength of telehealth is likely in patients with chronic, well controlled diseases, who have frequent interactions with health care. Examples of this include (although certainly are not limited to) established patients with well-controlled IBD, non-cirrhotic liver disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. Triaging patients who need in-person evaluation, ensuring patient and provider well-being, and creating a financially sustainable model of care are yet unresolved issues. Providers will likely vary in their personal acceptance of telehealth and will need to advocate within their own systems to obtain a hybrid model of telehealth that maximizes quality of care with job satisfaction.
 

Dr. Vaughn is associate professor of medicine and codirector of the inflammatory bowel disease program in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has received consulting fees from Prometheus and research support from Roche, Takeda, Celgene, Diasorin, and Crestovo.

References

1. George S et al. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:946.

2. Blank S. “What’s missing from Zoom reminds us what it means to be human,” 2020 Apr 27, Medium.

3. Williams N. Occup Med (Lond). 2021 Apr. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqab041.

There are multiple benefits and few harms from sharing clinical notes in patients with mental illness, results of a poll of international experts show.

As of April 5, 2021, new federal rules in the United States mandate that all patients are offered online access to their electronic health record. 

“Given that sharing notes in psychiatry is likely to be more complicated than in some other specialties, we were unsure whether experts would consider the practice more harmful than beneficial,” Charlotte Blease, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“However, the results of our poll suggest clinicians’ anxieties about sharing mental health notes with patients may be misplaced. We found clear consensus among experts that the benefits of online access to clinical notes could outweigh the risks,” Dr. Blease said in a news release.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.

Empowering patients

Investigators used an online Delphi poll, an established methodology used to investigate emerging health care policy – including in psychiatry – to solicit the views of an international panel of experts on the mental health effects of sharing clinical notes.

The panel included clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informatics experts with extensive experience and research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.

There was consensus among the panel that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients’ understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments.

There was also consensus that access to clinical notes could enhance patient recall about what was communicated and improve mental health patients’ sense of control over their health care.

The panel also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization.

Confirmatory findings

The poll results support an earlier study by Dr. Blease and colleagues that evaluated the experiences of patients in accessing their online clinical notes. 

Among these patients with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar-related disorder, “access helped to clarify why medications had been prescribed, improved understanding about side effects, and 20% of patients reported doing a better job taking their meds as prescribed,” said Dr. Blease.

However, the expert panel in the Delphi poll predicted that with “open notes” some patients might demand changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians might be less detailed/accurate in documenting negative aspects of the patient relationship, details about patients’ personalities, or symptoms of paranoia in patients.

“If some patients feel more judged or offended by what they read, this may undermine the therapeutic relationship. We also need more research into the experiences of patients hospitalized for their care,” she added.

“In some clinical cases where there is more focus on emergency care than in forming a therapeutic relationship, for example emergency department visits, we know almost nothing about the risks and benefits associated with OpenNotes,” senior author John Torous, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

“One thing is clear,” Dr. Blease said. “Patient access to their online medical records is now mainstream, and we need more clinician education on how to write notes that patients will read, and more guidance among patients on the benefits and risks of accessing their notes.”

Support for this research was provided by a J. F. Keane Scholar Award and a Swedish Research Council on Health, Working Life, and Welfare grant. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There are multiple benefits and few harms from sharing clinical notes in patients with mental illness, results of a poll of international experts show.

As of April 5, 2021, new federal rules in the United States mandate that all patients are offered online access to their electronic health record. 

“Given that sharing notes in psychiatry is likely to be more complicated than in some other specialties, we were unsure whether experts would consider the practice more harmful than beneficial,” Charlotte Blease, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“However, the results of our poll suggest clinicians’ anxieties about sharing mental health notes with patients may be misplaced. We found clear consensus among experts that the benefits of online access to clinical notes could outweigh the risks,” Dr. Blease said in a news release.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.

Empowering patients

Investigators used an online Delphi poll, an established methodology used to investigate emerging health care policy – including in psychiatry – to solicit the views of an international panel of experts on the mental health effects of sharing clinical notes.

The panel included clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informatics experts with extensive experience and research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.

There was consensus among the panel that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients’ understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments.

There was also consensus that access to clinical notes could enhance patient recall about what was communicated and improve mental health patients’ sense of control over their health care.

The panel also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization.

Confirmatory findings

The poll results support an earlier study by Dr. Blease and colleagues that evaluated the experiences of patients in accessing their online clinical notes. 

Among these patients with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar-related disorder, “access helped to clarify why medications had been prescribed, improved understanding about side effects, and 20% of patients reported doing a better job taking their meds as prescribed,” said Dr. Blease.

However, the expert panel in the Delphi poll predicted that with “open notes” some patients might demand changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians might be less detailed/accurate in documenting negative aspects of the patient relationship, details about patients’ personalities, or symptoms of paranoia in patients.

“If some patients feel more judged or offended by what they read, this may undermine the therapeutic relationship. We also need more research into the experiences of patients hospitalized for their care,” she added.

“In some clinical cases where there is more focus on emergency care than in forming a therapeutic relationship, for example emergency department visits, we know almost nothing about the risks and benefits associated with OpenNotes,” senior author John Torous, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

“One thing is clear,” Dr. Blease said. “Patient access to their online medical records is now mainstream, and we need more clinician education on how to write notes that patients will read, and more guidance among patients on the benefits and risks of accessing their notes.”

Support for this research was provided by a J. F. Keane Scholar Award and a Swedish Research Council on Health, Working Life, and Welfare grant. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There are multiple benefits and few harms from sharing clinical notes in patients with mental illness, results of a poll of international experts show.

As of April 5, 2021, new federal rules in the United States mandate that all patients are offered online access to their electronic health record. 

“Given that sharing notes in psychiatry is likely to be more complicated than in some other specialties, we were unsure whether experts would consider the practice more harmful than beneficial,” Charlotte Blease, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“However, the results of our poll suggest clinicians’ anxieties about sharing mental health notes with patients may be misplaced. We found clear consensus among experts that the benefits of online access to clinical notes could outweigh the risks,” Dr. Blease said in a news release.

The study was published online in PLOS ONE.

Empowering patients

Investigators used an online Delphi poll, an established methodology used to investigate emerging health care policy – including in psychiatry – to solicit the views of an international panel of experts on the mental health effects of sharing clinical notes.

The panel included clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informatics experts with extensive experience and research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.

There was consensus among the panel that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients’ understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments.

There was also consensus that access to clinical notes could enhance patient recall about what was communicated and improve mental health patients’ sense of control over their health care.

The panel also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization.

Confirmatory findings

The poll results support an earlier study by Dr. Blease and colleagues that evaluated the experiences of patients in accessing their online clinical notes. 

Among these patients with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar-related disorder, “access helped to clarify why medications had been prescribed, improved understanding about side effects, and 20% of patients reported doing a better job taking their meds as prescribed,” said Dr. Blease.

However, the expert panel in the Delphi poll predicted that with “open notes” some patients might demand changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians might be less detailed/accurate in documenting negative aspects of the patient relationship, details about patients’ personalities, or symptoms of paranoia in patients.

“If some patients feel more judged or offended by what they read, this may undermine the therapeutic relationship. We also need more research into the experiences of patients hospitalized for their care,” she added.

“In some clinical cases where there is more focus on emergency care than in forming a therapeutic relationship, for example emergency department visits, we know almost nothing about the risks and benefits associated with OpenNotes,” senior author John Torous, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview.

“One thing is clear,” Dr. Blease said. “Patient access to their online medical records is now mainstream, and we need more clinician education on how to write notes that patients will read, and more guidance among patients on the benefits and risks of accessing their notes.”

Support for this research was provided by a J. F. Keane Scholar Award and a Swedish Research Council on Health, Working Life, and Welfare grant. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

Medical transition in transgender patients

I just read the article “Writing letters for transgender patients undergoing medical transition” by Dr. Amy Riese (Pearls, Current Psychiatry, August 2021, p. 51-52). I very much appreciate this topic being brought into the light and her excellent guidelines for patients who suffer from gender dysphoria and require medical transition.

I would like to use her piece as an opportunity to highlight what has become a chasm in psychiatric care. Dr. Riese’s article was on the letter itself and not the assessment of a patient with possible gender dysphoria, but assessment is barely mentioned, and is the single most important part of a gender transition process. Assessment has become the huge chasm in treatment. In my community, both personally and professionally, I have witnessed very little assessment taking place, yet a lot of transitioning is happening.

Concerned and caring family members take their child (or self-present if the patient is an adult) to gender specialists for their expertise. What is happening during these evaluations are brief conversations during which the gender specialist accepts a patient’s (sometimes a minor’s) self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria. There is discussion of the importance of being gender-affirming, and the beginning of a discussion of hormone therapy. During these discussions of hormone therapy, there is very little disclosure of some of the untoward effects. I understand this is a generalization, and there are some gender specialists who are doing excellent, thorough assessments. But this is what I am seeing in my community, to the point that I have no local specialists to whom I feel comfortable sending my patients who may have gender dysphoria.

During discussions, some of the significant medical outcomes of hormone therapy (immunosuppression, loss of bone density, sterility, increased risk of certain types of cancer, etc.) are not mentioned, or are mentioned in passing. Clinicians have begun using euphemisms such as “top surgery” or “upper body surgery,” as used in Dr. Riese’s article, rather than the medically accurate term, which is “bilateral mastectomy.” These behaviors are being manifested by mostly well-meaning clinicians, and start the process of ushering a patient down a one-way street toward a medical transition.

In April of this year, a prestigious institution in my state did a training on aspects of treating transgender and nonbinary youth. The training advocated giving less information to transgender youth regarding the effects of treatment on fertility, arguing that giving adequate information would disrupt the normal course of development. However, we are allowing these same youth to consent for treatment.

This is a very destructive phenomenon, and only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for patients who medically transition who did not have an adequate assessment. After so much loss under the auspices of treatment, one would hope that at the very least, these children and young adults would be in a better place psychologically, that they would finally be happy and fulfilled in their new reality, that their mental anguish would evaporate, and with it, their risk of suicide. And this may be true if the patient had gender dysphoria.

But what about the patients who did not have an adequate assessment, whose self-diagnosis was accepted without question, the gender-affirming model immediately implemented, and referrals quickly made for medical treatment? For those patients, once everything has been done, every hormone taken, every surgery performed, but still not male enough, not convincingly male in every aspect, now what? Where does one go from there?

Only time will tell what the psychiatric outcomes will be for these patients, who are primarily youth and young adults at this point. What about the psychological pain that brought them to identify as transgender in the first place? Since the patient was colluded with in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that pain was never identified and addressed. What will the suicide rate be of these fully transitioned patients who never had gender dysphoria?

And what shall become of the clinicians who treated them without pause or careful consideration, who bypassed informed consent, treating teens as if they had the judgment and psychological maturity of an adult? What will be their defense when the malpractice lawsuits begin to mount against them, when patients and their families emerge on the other side of the medical transition to find that life, identity, intimacy, and the most basic biological functions have been altered forever based on the capricious and suggestible whims of children?

According to the DSM-5, the prevalence of gender dysphoria is very low. Even if we were to double the DSM-5 estimate, it is still very low. As psychiatrists, we are leaders in the mental health field, and need to set the tone and guide nonphysician clinicians toward extremely careful assessment of these patients.

While Dr. Riese gives excellent information about how to write a letter for a patient who needs transition, far fewer of these letters should be written. The upward trend in the numbers of patients receiving a diagnosis, and subsequently letters, is largely imposed by clinicians who disregard the DSM-5 and fail to apply critical thought to this assessments.

A novel investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived treatment resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes in a patient who had lived with the condition for about 40 years.

CIPhotos/Getty Images

The patient was the first in Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of the insulin-producing islet cell therapy VX-880 for patients with type 1 diabetes who have impaired hypoglycemic awareness and severe hypoglycemia.

The cells are delivered by infusion into the hepatic portal vein. As of now, chronic immunosuppression is required to prevent rejection, but several approaches are being studied to overcome the limitation.

“There’s hope that this is a real advance. It’s been long awaited, and it looks really encouraging,” James Markmann, MD, PhD, the surgeon who performed the procedure, told this news organization.

The use of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells, first reported in 2014 by a team at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Boston, is seen as a major advance over use of cadaveric donor islet cells because stem cell–derived islets are available in unlimited and uncontaminated supplies.

Cadaveric donor islets are being used in products such as donislecel (CellTrans), which was endorsed by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee in the summer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

The patient in the Vertex trial isn’t the first reported stem cell–derived islet recipient with type 1 diabetes, but these cells are the first to be transplanted into the liver.

“This Vertex patient stood out because the reduction in insulin requirement ... was so striking,” noted Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has been transplanting islet cells from cadaveric donors into humans via the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

“Nobody knew what to expect, as it hadn’t been done before, but certainly the results in this patient are better than what I would have expected from a deceased donor islet transplant,” he added.

Asked to comment, A.M. James Shapiro, MD, agreed. “I think the most important finding is that a stem cell–derived islet is now transplanted into the liver of a patient safely, so far,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Shapiro is clinical director of the living donor and islet cell transplantation programs at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. He pioneered cadaveric donor islet cell transplantation more than 20 years ago with the watershed Edmonton Protocol.

‘Impressive finding ... bodes well for ongoing efforts’

Vertex announced the result by press release. The company plans to transplant another 16 patients, staggering them over time at multiple centers.

The first patient was treated with a single infusion of VX-880 at half the target dose (per protocol for the first two study subjects), along with standard immunosuppressive therapy. At 90 days, the patient’s C-peptide, a measure of endogenous insulin secretion, rose from undetectable to 280 pmol/L fasting and 560 pmol/L post mixed-meal tolerance testing.

Over the same period, the patient’s hemoglobin A1c dropped from 8.6% at baseline to 7.2%. And within 7 days, the individual’s daily exogenous insulin requirement dropped from an average of 34 units to just 2.9 units, a 91% decrease.

The patient had experienced five severe hypoglycemic episodes in the year prior to transplant. They experienced some mild hypoglycemia soon after the procedure while insulin doses were being adjusted, but none thereafter. 

Dr. Shapiro said in an interview: “I was absolutely thrilled to see the first patient results with high C-peptide and a 91% reduction in insulin. That’s a pretty impressive finding for half dosing in the very first patient in a trial. I think it bodes really well for ongoing efforts in this area by Vertex and by others that have similar kinds of cells. It’s very exciting.”

However, he cautioned, “we do need some longer-term data to be sure there’s no off-target growth or other concerns. But based on the purity of this product, that risk is likely to be low.”

And he noted, “I think we still have to address the challenges of setting this process up. A huge amount of work has gone into manufacturing the cell product for a single patient. I think it remains to be seen whether the same technology can be delivered at a larger scale ... i.e., being able to treat hundreds or thousands of patients.”

A blog post on the website of diabetes charity JDRF called the result “outstanding.” “It’s a big deal,” they added. However, they also cautioned: “There are a few things to keep in mind while assessing the data. One is that these are only results from a single person. Data are needed from many more to fully evaluate the potential of this therapy. The second is that this person only received half the target dose of cells.”

Dr. Shapiro is working with another company, ViaCyte, which has also developed stem cell–derived islets. In contrast to the Vertex product, which is fully differentiated and delivered to the liver, ViaCyte’s PEC-Direct product is comprised of stem cell-derived pancreatic islet progenitor cells that are implanted subcutaneously in a pouch, allowing for vascularization.

In a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2021, ViaCyte reported on a patient given PEC-Direct. In that patient, stimulated C-peptide increased from 0.1 ng/mL at baseline to 0.8 ng/mL at week 39, and there was a drop in A1c from 7.4% to 6.6%, with no adverse events.

Immunosuppression: Which approach will come closer to cure?

Thus far, the requirement for lifelong immunosuppression has meant that any islet cell replacement approach, including with stem cell–derived islets, has been limited to use in people with type 1 diabetes who have hypoglycemic unawareness or severely unpredictable blood glucose levels.

Two broad approaches are simultaneously being explored to overcome the rejection problem: Encapsulation of the cells to protect them from the immune system, and genetic modification of the cells so that they don’t provoke the immune system in the first place.

In 2022, Vertex plans to file an investigational new drug application for an encapsulated islet cell program with the FDA.

Dr. Markmann believes the genetic modification approach is more promising. “I’m not a believer in encapsulation. I think the foreign body response is hard to overcome. I think the answer will ultimately be genetically modifying the [cell] lines. ... The cell could express something that would potentially turn off the lymphocytes or interfere with the lymphocytes trying to attack them.”

Moreover, he said, “you don’t have to get rid of immunosuppression completely. It’s all [a] risk-benefit [equation]. Even if you could get it down to a single less-toxic [immunosuppressive] agent that would be a huge step.”

Dr. Shapiro commented: “All efforts and eyes are laser-focused on developing cells or approaches that will allow transplantation of this kind of stem cell without any immunosuppression or with low-dose immunosuppression that could be regarded as being exceedingly low risk.”

“Then, and only then, I think we could offer this kind of treatment to children who are just diagnosed with diabetes or to [a bigger proportion of] patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. ... The science has to be done in a step-wise fashion,” he added.

Microencapsulation, Dr. Shapiro noted, “is a big challenge because the process of capturing the cells and putting them into a device is really injurious to their survival. ... That may or may not work.”

Dr. Shapiro and his Edmonton team are now embarking on a new trial with ViaCyte and CRISPR Therapeutics using gene-edited cells that contain two knock-in genes and two knock-out genes shown to be less immunogenic and anti-inflammatory in rodent models.

“They look to be promising. We’re going to start a first-in-human trial in the next few months with those cells to see if they really are able to withstand a transplant without the need for immunosuppression. That will be a very exciting trial in itself,” Dr. Shapiro said, noting that they expect to enroll the first patients in the next few months.

However, he cautioned, “first we have to make sure that the gene-edited product continues to function in patients in the way that the original product did, that the cells survive, and that the gene modifications are actually effective. ... Maybe other iterations will be needed.”

“I think, as we move forward, we will ultimately have a gene-edited stem cell–derived product that is immune evasive and will survive. So, I’m ... optimistic that this is not as long term as you might think, and it’s ... happening much more rapidly – at least in first-in-human trials to test safety and preliminary efficacy.”

Dr. Shapiro is a consultant for ViaCyte.

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

A novel investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived treatment resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes in a patient who had lived with the condition for about 40 years.

CIPhotos/Getty Images

The patient was the first in Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of the insulin-producing islet cell therapy VX-880 for patients with type 1 diabetes who have impaired hypoglycemic awareness and severe hypoglycemia.

The cells are delivered by infusion into the hepatic portal vein. As of now, chronic immunosuppression is required to prevent rejection, but several approaches are being studied to overcome the limitation.

“There’s hope that this is a real advance. It’s been long awaited, and it looks really encouraging,” James Markmann, MD, PhD, the surgeon who performed the procedure, told this news organization.

The use of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells, first reported in 2014 by a team at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Boston, is seen as a major advance over use of cadaveric donor islet cells because stem cell–derived islets are available in unlimited and uncontaminated supplies.

Cadaveric donor islets are being used in products such as donislecel (CellTrans), which was endorsed by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee in the summer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

The patient in the Vertex trial isn’t the first reported stem cell–derived islet recipient with type 1 diabetes, but these cells are the first to be transplanted into the liver.

“This Vertex patient stood out because the reduction in insulin requirement ... was so striking,” noted Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has been transplanting islet cells from cadaveric donors into humans via the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

“Nobody knew what to expect, as it hadn’t been done before, but certainly the results in this patient are better than what I would have expected from a deceased donor islet transplant,” he added.

Asked to comment, A.M. James Shapiro, MD, agreed. “I think the most important finding is that a stem cell–derived islet is now transplanted into the liver of a patient safely, so far,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Shapiro is clinical director of the living donor and islet cell transplantation programs at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. He pioneered cadaveric donor islet cell transplantation more than 20 years ago with the watershed Edmonton Protocol.

‘Impressive finding ... bodes well for ongoing efforts’

Vertex announced the result by press release. The company plans to transplant another 16 patients, staggering them over time at multiple centers.

The first patient was treated with a single infusion of VX-880 at half the target dose (per protocol for the first two study subjects), along with standard immunosuppressive therapy. At 90 days, the patient’s C-peptide, a measure of endogenous insulin secretion, rose from undetectable to 280 pmol/L fasting and 560 pmol/L post mixed-meal tolerance testing.

Over the same period, the patient’s hemoglobin A1c dropped from 8.6% at baseline to 7.2%. And within 7 days, the individual’s daily exogenous insulin requirement dropped from an average of 34 units to just 2.9 units, a 91% decrease.

The patient had experienced five severe hypoglycemic episodes in the year prior to transplant. They experienced some mild hypoglycemia soon after the procedure while insulin doses were being adjusted, but none thereafter. 

Dr. Shapiro said in an interview: “I was absolutely thrilled to see the first patient results with high C-peptide and a 91% reduction in insulin. That’s a pretty impressive finding for half dosing in the very first patient in a trial. I think it bodes really well for ongoing efforts in this area by Vertex and by others that have similar kinds of cells. It’s very exciting.”

However, he cautioned, “we do need some longer-term data to be sure there’s no off-target growth or other concerns. But based on the purity of this product, that risk is likely to be low.”

And he noted, “I think we still have to address the challenges of setting this process up. A huge amount of work has gone into manufacturing the cell product for a single patient. I think it remains to be seen whether the same technology can be delivered at a larger scale ... i.e., being able to treat hundreds or thousands of patients.”

A blog post on the website of diabetes charity JDRF called the result “outstanding.” “It’s a big deal,” they added. However, they also cautioned: “There are a few things to keep in mind while assessing the data. One is that these are only results from a single person. Data are needed from many more to fully evaluate the potential of this therapy. The second is that this person only received half the target dose of cells.”

Dr. Shapiro is working with another company, ViaCyte, which has also developed stem cell–derived islets. In contrast to the Vertex product, which is fully differentiated and delivered to the liver, ViaCyte’s PEC-Direct product is comprised of stem cell-derived pancreatic islet progenitor cells that are implanted subcutaneously in a pouch, allowing for vascularization.

In a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2021, ViaCyte reported on a patient given PEC-Direct. In that patient, stimulated C-peptide increased from 0.1 ng/mL at baseline to 0.8 ng/mL at week 39, and there was a drop in A1c from 7.4% to 6.6%, with no adverse events.

Immunosuppression: Which approach will come closer to cure?

Thus far, the requirement for lifelong immunosuppression has meant that any islet cell replacement approach, including with stem cell–derived islets, has been limited to use in people with type 1 diabetes who have hypoglycemic unawareness or severely unpredictable blood glucose levels.

Two broad approaches are simultaneously being explored to overcome the rejection problem: Encapsulation of the cells to protect them from the immune system, and genetic modification of the cells so that they don’t provoke the immune system in the first place.

In 2022, Vertex plans to file an investigational new drug application for an encapsulated islet cell program with the FDA.

Dr. Markmann believes the genetic modification approach is more promising. “I’m not a believer in encapsulation. I think the foreign body response is hard to overcome. I think the answer will ultimately be genetically modifying the [cell] lines. ... The cell could express something that would potentially turn off the lymphocytes or interfere with the lymphocytes trying to attack them.”

Moreover, he said, “you don’t have to get rid of immunosuppression completely. It’s all [a] risk-benefit [equation]. Even if you could get it down to a single less-toxic [immunosuppressive] agent that would be a huge step.”

Dr. Shapiro commented: “All efforts and eyes are laser-focused on developing cells or approaches that will allow transplantation of this kind of stem cell without any immunosuppression or with low-dose immunosuppression that could be regarded as being exceedingly low risk.”

“Then, and only then, I think we could offer this kind of treatment to children who are just diagnosed with diabetes or to [a bigger proportion of] patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. ... The science has to be done in a step-wise fashion,” he added.

Microencapsulation, Dr. Shapiro noted, “is a big challenge because the process of capturing the cells and putting them into a device is really injurious to their survival. ... That may or may not work.”

Dr. Shapiro and his Edmonton team are now embarking on a new trial with ViaCyte and CRISPR Therapeutics using gene-edited cells that contain two knock-in genes and two knock-out genes shown to be less immunogenic and anti-inflammatory in rodent models.

“They look to be promising. We’re going to start a first-in-human trial in the next few months with those cells to see if they really are able to withstand a transplant without the need for immunosuppression. That will be a very exciting trial in itself,” Dr. Shapiro said, noting that they expect to enroll the first patients in the next few months.

However, he cautioned, “first we have to make sure that the gene-edited product continues to function in patients in the way that the original product did, that the cells survive, and that the gene modifications are actually effective. ... Maybe other iterations will be needed.”

“I think, as we move forward, we will ultimately have a gene-edited stem cell–derived product that is immune evasive and will survive. So, I’m ... optimistic that this is not as long term as you might think, and it’s ... happening much more rapidly – at least in first-in-human trials to test safety and preliminary efficacy.”

Dr. Shapiro is a consultant for ViaCyte.

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

A novel investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived treatment resulted in near reversal of type 1 diabetes in a patient who had lived with the condition for about 40 years.

CIPhotos/Getty Images

The patient was the first in Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of the insulin-producing islet cell therapy VX-880 for patients with type 1 diabetes who have impaired hypoglycemic awareness and severe hypoglycemia.

The cells are delivered by infusion into the hepatic portal vein. As of now, chronic immunosuppression is required to prevent rejection, but several approaches are being studied to overcome the limitation.

“There’s hope that this is a real advance. It’s been long awaited, and it looks really encouraging,” James Markmann, MD, PhD, the surgeon who performed the procedure, told this news organization.

The use of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells, first reported in 2014 by a team at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, Boston, is seen as a major advance over use of cadaveric donor islet cells because stem cell–derived islets are available in unlimited and uncontaminated supplies.

Cadaveric donor islets are being used in products such as donislecel (CellTrans), which was endorsed by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee in the summer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

The patient in the Vertex trial isn’t the first reported stem cell–derived islet recipient with type 1 diabetes, but these cells are the first to be transplanted into the liver.

“This Vertex patient stood out because the reduction in insulin requirement ... was so striking,” noted Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has been transplanting islet cells from cadaveric donors into humans via the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

“Nobody knew what to expect, as it hadn’t been done before, but certainly the results in this patient are better than what I would have expected from a deceased donor islet transplant,” he added.

Asked to comment, A.M. James Shapiro, MD, agreed. “I think the most important finding is that a stem cell–derived islet is now transplanted into the liver of a patient safely, so far,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Shapiro is clinical director of the living donor and islet cell transplantation programs at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. He pioneered cadaveric donor islet cell transplantation more than 20 years ago with the watershed Edmonton Protocol.

‘Impressive finding ... bodes well for ongoing efforts’

Vertex announced the result by press release. The company plans to transplant another 16 patients, staggering them over time at multiple centers.

The first patient was treated with a single infusion of VX-880 at half the target dose (per protocol for the first two study subjects), along with standard immunosuppressive therapy. At 90 days, the patient’s C-peptide, a measure of endogenous insulin secretion, rose from undetectable to 280 pmol/L fasting and 560 pmol/L post mixed-meal tolerance testing.

Over the same period, the patient’s hemoglobin A1c dropped from 8.6% at baseline to 7.2%. And within 7 days, the individual’s daily exogenous insulin requirement dropped from an average of 34 units to just 2.9 units, a 91% decrease.

The patient had experienced five severe hypoglycemic episodes in the year prior to transplant. They experienced some mild hypoglycemia soon after the procedure while insulin doses were being adjusted, but none thereafter. 

Dr. Shapiro said in an interview: “I was absolutely thrilled to see the first patient results with high C-peptide and a 91% reduction in insulin. That’s a pretty impressive finding for half dosing in the very first patient in a trial. I think it bodes really well for ongoing efforts in this area by Vertex and by others that have similar kinds of cells. It’s very exciting.”

However, he cautioned, “we do need some longer-term data to be sure there’s no off-target growth or other concerns. But based on the purity of this product, that risk is likely to be low.”

And he noted, “I think we still have to address the challenges of setting this process up. A huge amount of work has gone into manufacturing the cell product for a single patient. I think it remains to be seen whether the same technology can be delivered at a larger scale ... i.e., being able to treat hundreds or thousands of patients.”

A blog post on the website of diabetes charity JDRF called the result “outstanding.” “It’s a big deal,” they added. However, they also cautioned: “There are a few things to keep in mind while assessing the data. One is that these are only results from a single person. Data are needed from many more to fully evaluate the potential of this therapy. The second is that this person only received half the target dose of cells.”

Dr. Shapiro is working with another company, ViaCyte, which has also developed stem cell–derived islets. In contrast to the Vertex product, which is fully differentiated and delivered to the liver, ViaCyte’s PEC-Direct product is comprised of stem cell-derived pancreatic islet progenitor cells that are implanted subcutaneously in a pouch, allowing for vascularization.

In a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2021, ViaCyte reported on a patient given PEC-Direct. In that patient, stimulated C-peptide increased from 0.1 ng/mL at baseline to 0.8 ng/mL at week 39, and there was a drop in A1c from 7.4% to 6.6%, with no adverse events.

Immunosuppression: Which approach will come closer to cure?

Thus far, the requirement for lifelong immunosuppression has meant that any islet cell replacement approach, including with stem cell–derived islets, has been limited to use in people with type 1 diabetes who have hypoglycemic unawareness or severely unpredictable blood glucose levels.

Two broad approaches are simultaneously being explored to overcome the rejection problem: Encapsulation of the cells to protect them from the immune system, and genetic modification of the cells so that they don’t provoke the immune system in the first place.

In 2022, Vertex plans to file an investigational new drug application for an encapsulated islet cell program with the FDA.

Dr. Markmann believes the genetic modification approach is more promising. “I’m not a believer in encapsulation. I think the foreign body response is hard to overcome. I think the answer will ultimately be genetically modifying the [cell] lines. ... The cell could express something that would potentially turn off the lymphocytes or interfere with the lymphocytes trying to attack them.”

Moreover, he said, “you don’t have to get rid of immunosuppression completely. It’s all [a] risk-benefit [equation]. Even if you could get it down to a single less-toxic [immunosuppressive] agent that would be a huge step.”

Dr. Shapiro commented: “All efforts and eyes are laser-focused on developing cells or approaches that will allow transplantation of this kind of stem cell without any immunosuppression or with low-dose immunosuppression that could be regarded as being exceedingly low risk.”

“Then, and only then, I think we could offer this kind of treatment to children who are just diagnosed with diabetes or to [a bigger proportion of] patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. ... The science has to be done in a step-wise fashion,” he added.

Microencapsulation, Dr. Shapiro noted, “is a big challenge because the process of capturing the cells and putting them into a device is really injurious to their survival. ... That may or may not work.”

Dr. Shapiro and his Edmonton team are now embarking on a new trial with ViaCyte and CRISPR Therapeutics using gene-edited cells that contain two knock-in genes and two knock-out genes shown to be less immunogenic and anti-inflammatory in rodent models.

“They look to be promising. We’re going to start a first-in-human trial in the next few months with those cells to see if they really are able to withstand a transplant without the need for immunosuppression. That will be a very exciting trial in itself,” Dr. Shapiro said, noting that they expect to enroll the first patients in the next few months.

However, he cautioned, “first we have to make sure that the gene-edited product continues to function in patients in the way that the original product did, that the cells survive, and that the gene modifications are actually effective. ... Maybe other iterations will be needed.”

“I think, as we move forward, we will ultimately have a gene-edited stem cell–derived product that is immune evasive and will survive. So, I’m ... optimistic that this is not as long term as you might think, and it’s ... happening much more rapidly – at least in first-in-human trials to test safety and preliminary efficacy.”

Dr. Shapiro is a consultant for ViaCyte.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

U.S. regulators have made it easier for physicians, patients, and researchers to determine the status of cancer medicines cleared for sale based on limited evidence, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.

On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:

• Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals 
• Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
• Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals

The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.

There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.

Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.

In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.

This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.

“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
 

Excel files, regular updates

For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.

For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.

The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.

The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.

Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.

“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.

The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.

More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.

“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.

However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals. 

These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”

This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.

A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.

Six of these withdrawals happened this year.

There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.

Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.

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

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder, often with onset at a young age. An estimated 4.4% of US adults experience bipolar disorder at some time in their lives.¹ According to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the past-year prevalence of bipolar disorder in adults age ≥60 is 0.7%.¹ An estimated 83% of people with bipolar disorder have serious impairment, which is the highest percentage of serious impairment among mood disorders.¹ Bipolar I disorder affects men and women equally, whereas bipolar II disorder seems to occur more frequently in women.² Symptoms of bipolar disorder include episodes of mania, depression, and mixed states.²

A variety of medications—including mood stabilizers, lithium, and antipsychotics (Table 1,^3,4 and Table 2,⁴)—and somatic treatments such as electro­convulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation are used to manage the depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar disorder. Treatment should be individualized based on the patient’s symptom severity, sensitivity, response to treatment, and preferences.

Continue to: CASE REPORT...

CASE REPORT

Mrs. G, age 65, lives with her husband. She has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension associated with hyperaldosteronism, and obesity, for which she has undergone bariatric surgery. Symptoms of bipolar disorder started when she was in her 30s, following the death of her father. Her initial symptoms included depressed mood, anger, irritability, difficulty sleeping, racing thoughts, and impulsive spending. She did not have any suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. She did not have anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. For some time, she took perphenazine, 16 mg/d, divalproex sodium, 1,500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime. These doses were reduced as her mood stabilized. Over time, divalproex sodium was tapered and discontinued, and perphenazine was reduced to 4 mg/d at bedtime. Lithium was tried briefly but discontinued because Mrs. G did not tolerate it well. She has never been hospitalized for mental health issues, but did have one emergency department visit a very long time ago. She has no history of suicide attempts, and there is no family history of completed suicide. There is a family history of bipolar disorder in her mother.

Mrs. G was born and raised outside the United States in a stable, two-parent home. She had no maltreatment during childhood. She has a bachelor’s degree and was employed. She is a social drinker, with no history of treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Mrs. G was stable on perphenazine, 4 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d, until 5 years ago. In 2016, she became concerned about her weight and overall health, and underwent bariatric surgery (gastric sleeve). After this surgery, Mrs. G experienced changes in mood and thought. She felt paranoid and had ideas of reference, social sensitivity, increased irritability, and poor self-esteem. Perphenazine was discontinued, divalproex was reintroduced, and lurasidone was started. Lurasidone was titrated up to 120 mg/d, and divalproex up to 1,500 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued for her insomnia. She also occasionally took over-the-counter melatonin, 5 to 10 mg, as needed for insomnia.

Mrs. G improved on this combination, and became stable and euthymic in September 2017. Other than a brief hypomanic episode in Spring 2018 that resolved quickly, she remained euthymic. During routine follow-up visits, Mrs. G’s nephrologist noticed that her sodium levels had been fluctuating. Mrs. G said her nephrologist was not sure exactly what was causing these fluctuations, and she continued to take the same medications.

In June 2018, Mrs. G developed tremors, slowing, and lethargy. Lurasidone was gradually reduced to 60 mg/d and divalproex to 750 mg/d. Temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, was continued. In July 2018, divalproex was further reduced to 500 mg/d because Mrs. G’s free valproic acid levels were elevated. In February 2019, lurasidone was further reduced to 40 mg/d due to blunted affect, and in April 2019, escitalopram, 10 mg/d, was added for symptoms of depression (off-label), and anxiety. In June 2019, Mrs. G’s sodium level was 127 mEq/L (reference range: 135 to 145 mEq/L). Because escitalopram can cause hyponatremia, it was discontinued in August 2019, but Mrs. G continued to take lurasidone, 40 mg/d, divalproex, 500 mg/d, and temazepam, 30 mg/d.

In October and November 2020, Mrs. G’s sodium level remained low at 123 and 127 mEq/L. Our treatment team wondered if lurasidone could be causing Mrs. G’s sodium levels to fall. Lurasidone was tapered over 3 days and discontinued. Repeat blood work showed that Mrs. G’s sodium levels soon returned to normal range. In January through March 2021, her sodium levels were 138, 139, and 136 mEq/L, all of which were within normal range. This confirmed our suspicion that lurasidone had caused the hyponatremia, though briefly it may have been made worse by escitalopram. Currently, Mrs. G is stable on perphenazine, 4 mg twice a day, divalproex, 500 mg/d, temazepam, 30 mg/d at bedtime, and melatonin, 5 mg at bedtime.

Continue to: Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion...

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion can result in hyponatremia. Classes of medications that can cause SIADH include antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, cytotoxic agents, and pain medications.⁵ The class of drugs most commonly associated with SIADH is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly citalopram.⁵ Among the antipsychotics, risperidone is most associated with hyponatremia. The proposed mechanism of medication-induced SIADH is an increase in the release of ADH.⁶ Treatment options include discontinuing the offending medication(s) or switching to a different medication.

Hyponatremia is a rare adverse effect of lurasidone, with a reported incidence <1%.⁷ Although hyponatremia is potentially life-threatening, there is no recommendation to routinely monitor sodium levels in patients treated with lurasidone or other psychotropics, and patients who are prescribed lurasidone are not routinely monitored for sodium deficiency. Table 3^8,9 outlines risk factors for developing hyponatremia among patients taking psychotropic medications.

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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