User login
Unvaccinated people likely to catch COVID repeatedly
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.
Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.
“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.
“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”
The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.
The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.
“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.
“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”
Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.
The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.
“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Steroid-induced psychosis in MS? Quetiapine may help
a new case review says.
“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.
In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.
“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”
For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).
All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.
Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”
Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.
As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”
In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”
And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”
Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
a new case review says.
“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.
In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.
“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”
For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).
All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.
Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”
Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.
As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”
In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”
And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”
Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
a new case review says.
“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.
In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.
“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”
For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).
All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.
Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”
Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.
As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”
In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”
And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”
Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”
No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
FROM CMSC 2021
Antiepileptic medications linked to increased priapism risk
Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.
After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.
These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.
“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.
If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Noteworthy limitations
Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.
She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.
These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.
Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
Replication needed
Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.
Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.
They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.
The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.
A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.
The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.
“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
New and important hypothesis?
Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”
He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.
However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.
It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.
“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, ,” he said.
Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”
The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.
After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.
These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.
“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.
If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Noteworthy limitations
Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.
She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.
These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.
Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
Replication needed
Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.
Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.
They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.
The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.
A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.
The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.
“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
New and important hypothesis?
Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”
He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.
However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.
It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.
“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, ,” he said.
Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”
The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.
After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.
These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.
“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.
If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Noteworthy limitations
Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.
She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.
These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.
Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
Replication needed
Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.
Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.
They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.
The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.
A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.
The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.
“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
New and important hypothesis?
Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”
He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.
However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.
It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.
“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, ,” he said.
Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”
The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECNP 2021
Rachel Levine: Making History Every Step of the Way
“We each come to public service in our own unique way,” ADM Rachel Levine, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee at her confirmation hearing in February 2021.
In her case, unique and history-making. Levine was confirmed on Tuesday as the first-ever openly transgender—and firstwoman—four-star admiral in the history of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. She is also the first openly transgender four-star officer and the first openly transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate. In fact, she is the nation’s highest-ranking openly transgender official—the first such across any of the eight uniformed services.
All those firsts aside, in her confirmation hearing remarks, ADM. Levine said, “At its core, my career has been about helping people live healthy lives.” She began her career at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, in pediatric and adolescent medicine, focusing on mental and physical health. Moving to the Penn State College of Medicine, ADM Levine was a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry and vice-chair for clinical affairs for the Department of Pediatrics. At Penn State, she initiated the Division of Adolescent Medicine for the care of complex teens with medical and psychological problems. As chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, she also founded an eating disorders program, offering multidisciplinary treatment for children, adolescents, and adults.
In 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf nominated ADM Levine to be Physician General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and she was confirmed unanimously by the state senate. In 2018, she was named Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health. In these roles, she tackled the state’s massive opioid misuse and overdose crisis. She focused on opioid stewardship, developed continuing medical education programs, and established prescribing guidelines and a “robust” prescription drug monitoring program. She traveled extensively throughout small communities, doing public events with local officials and residents to talk about opioid abuse. The efforts began, slowly, to pay off. In 2015, 3,383 people died of drug overdose in Pennsylvania, a 23% increase from 2014. By 2018, 65% of drug overdose deaths involved opioids, but the total number of deaths fell to 2,866.
One of her most significant accomplishments as Physician General, Levine said, was to issue the first-ever statewide standing order for distribution of the anti-overdose drug naloxone, allowing law enforcement to carry the drug and Pennsylvania citizens to buy itover the counter. According to the Pennsylvania Opioid Data Dashboard, between January 1, 2018, and October 9, 2021, 62,954 doses of naloxone were administered by EMS.
In another of Levine’s projects, the Pennsylvania Rural Health Model, the goal was to move rural hospitals from fee-for-service models to global budget payments, which she said, “aligned incentives for providers to deliver value-based care and for rural hospitals to transform their care to better meet community health needs.”
Working in tandem with HHS, Levine’s teams also set up a maternal mortality review committee “to better understand and respond to the causes of maternal deaths,” and worked to improve childhood immunization rates.
“Of course, our focus changed dramatically last year,” Levine said, “and COVID-19 became my most urgent and primary focus.” She concentrated on three key priorities: containment with expansion of testing and contact tracing; mitigation with masks and distancing; and medical countermeasures, including monoclonal antibodies and vaccines. To carry out the strategies, she oversaw a health equity task force, which included community stakeholders such as the Black Coalition Against COVID-19, the Latino Connection, and a faith-based program that allowed people to get tested at their places of worship.
When lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) advocates charged that states were not collecting data early in the pandemic on sexual orientation or gender identity, in another historic move, Levine announced in March 2020 that Pennsylvania would begin collecting demographic data on the coronavirus, making it the first state in the country to do so.
Levine has garnered praise from many sources. “This is a proud moment for us,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement, calling her a “cherished and critical partner in our work to build a healthier America.” Alphonso David, then president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that Levine’s nomination to be the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health represented “real change” in the government’s approach to the coronavirus and LGBTQ+ health issues. Levine “led Pennsylvania’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic superbly,” he said.
She has also triggered a significant amount of outrage in conservative quarters. She was routinely castigated for her early actions in the pandemic. Writing for The American Spectator in May 2020, Paul Kengor, a former UPMC researcher, said UPMC’s overall handling of the virus was “impressive and inspired confidence.” However, tracking the data on fatalities, he said, he found the disproportionate number of deaths in nursing homes “alarming and strange.” Citing an investigative article in the Bucks County Courier Times, he blamed Pennsylvania officials—including Levine—for guidelines that directed licensed long-term care facilities to continue admitting new patients, including those discharged from hospitals back to nursing homes. However, Kengor claimed, the “partisan press” would protect Wolf and Levine: “Levine is a liberal darling as the nation’s first (and arguably highest-ranking) transgender public official.”
At the February 2021 federal confirmation hearing, Levine was pressed on data discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s public reports on nursing home coronavirus deaths and cases. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Spotlight PA reporting that found weekly reports released by the state health department were consistently missing data for more than 100 of the 693 nursing homes. Levine, in response, pointed to lags in the state’s electronic death reporting system and to slow uploads. Pennsylvania health officials also referred to a state law that prohibits the release of disease records by state or local authorities.
In a June 2020 opinion article, Levine wrote that the Pennsylvania Health Department had followed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, including limiting outside people from entering long-term care facilities. The Pennsylvania Health Department also sent thousands of shipments of personal protective equipment and conducted virtual inspections, including on-site inspections as warranted.
Despite those efforts, Levine said, “staff members who have dedicated their lives to caring for these vulnerable Pennsylvanians unknowingly contracted COVID-19 in their communities and carried it into these facilities.” She pointed out that residents who returned from hospitals had been isolated if they contracted COVID-19. Patients returning to nursing homes did not introduce COVID-19, Levine said, “because it was there that they first came into contact with the virus.” Moreover, those patients were isolated, just as they had been before they required hospital-level care, she added.
When a long-term care facility reports a case of COVID-19, Levine noted, the Pennsylvania Health Department considers it an outbreak and offers a variety of resources to the facility, including mitigation measures and the services of an infection control consultant, or even deploying the Pennsylvania National Guard to assist with staffing. Pennsylvania cannot force facilities to accept these services, she pointed out, but some refuse out of fear of receiving citations. “[O]ur top priority,” Levine said, “is halting COVID-19, not issuing citations.”
Her decisions on health restrictions and closures to combat the pandemic created controversy in the state, but much of the criticism also took aim at Levine identifying openly as transgender. Her selection as the first openly transgender official to be confirmed by the Senate has been targeted by conservative groups as a political gesture by President Biden. Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, posted on Facebook: “Biden gang playing quota politics with public health service.”
In her remarks to the Senate committee, however, Levine calmly noted that her appointment by Gov. Wolf was confirmed unanimously and that she was approved twice more on a bipartisan basis to be Secretary of Health. She met with nearly all of the senators personally. Her confirmation by the senate Republicans was particularly meaningful, she told NBC Out. “[They] judged me strictly on my professional qualifications.”
Social media has made much of Levine’s transgender identification, both pro and con. The Twitterverse, predictably, is packed with anti-Levine and anti-LGBTQ+ rants. But Levine’s rise has energized the LGBTQ+ community, who hail it as a breakthrough. Scout, the single-named executive director of the National LGBT Cancer Network, said, “The fact that she is trans is an inspiration for the many of us who have never had a role model this senior before.” Levine herself is determined to be a “beacon” in representing the LGBTQ+ community in her latest role at the corps: “Diversity makes us stronger,” she said.
“What people don’t understand, they fear,” Levine, who is a frequent public speaker, has said. “The more we can educate people and show that we’re productive members of the community—with families, lives, careers—that helps people understand us better.” That includes education of medical professionals. “We need to do a better job educating medical students about LGBT issues and transgender medicine,” she told NBC Out. She may need to start with the members of Congress. At Levine’s confirmation hearing to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health, Sen. Rand Paul, for instance, compared transgender surgery to “genital mutilation.”
HHS Secretary Becerra called Levine’s appointment as the first openly transgender four-star officer “a giant step forward toward equality as a nation.” US Surgeon General VADM Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said her appointment represents “an important step towards a more inclusive future and her service will undoubtedly advance the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps’ mission to protect, promote, and advance the health and safety of our nation.”
Levine told the Senate committee, “There is still so much more to do.”
“We each come to public service in our own unique way,” ADM Rachel Levine, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee at her confirmation hearing in February 2021.
In her case, unique and history-making. Levine was confirmed on Tuesday as the first-ever openly transgender—and firstwoman—four-star admiral in the history of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. She is also the first openly transgender four-star officer and the first openly transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate. In fact, she is the nation’s highest-ranking openly transgender official—the first such across any of the eight uniformed services.
All those firsts aside, in her confirmation hearing remarks, ADM. Levine said, “At its core, my career has been about helping people live healthy lives.” She began her career at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, in pediatric and adolescent medicine, focusing on mental and physical health. Moving to the Penn State College of Medicine, ADM Levine was a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry and vice-chair for clinical affairs for the Department of Pediatrics. At Penn State, she initiated the Division of Adolescent Medicine for the care of complex teens with medical and psychological problems. As chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, she also founded an eating disorders program, offering multidisciplinary treatment for children, adolescents, and adults.
In 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf nominated ADM Levine to be Physician General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and she was confirmed unanimously by the state senate. In 2018, she was named Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health. In these roles, she tackled the state’s massive opioid misuse and overdose crisis. She focused on opioid stewardship, developed continuing medical education programs, and established prescribing guidelines and a “robust” prescription drug monitoring program. She traveled extensively throughout small communities, doing public events with local officials and residents to talk about opioid abuse. The efforts began, slowly, to pay off. In 2015, 3,383 people died of drug overdose in Pennsylvania, a 23% increase from 2014. By 2018, 65% of drug overdose deaths involved opioids, but the total number of deaths fell to 2,866.
One of her most significant accomplishments as Physician General, Levine said, was to issue the first-ever statewide standing order for distribution of the anti-overdose drug naloxone, allowing law enforcement to carry the drug and Pennsylvania citizens to buy itover the counter. According to the Pennsylvania Opioid Data Dashboard, between January 1, 2018, and October 9, 2021, 62,954 doses of naloxone were administered by EMS.
In another of Levine’s projects, the Pennsylvania Rural Health Model, the goal was to move rural hospitals from fee-for-service models to global budget payments, which she said, “aligned incentives for providers to deliver value-based care and for rural hospitals to transform their care to better meet community health needs.”
Working in tandem with HHS, Levine’s teams also set up a maternal mortality review committee “to better understand and respond to the causes of maternal deaths,” and worked to improve childhood immunization rates.
“Of course, our focus changed dramatically last year,” Levine said, “and COVID-19 became my most urgent and primary focus.” She concentrated on three key priorities: containment with expansion of testing and contact tracing; mitigation with masks and distancing; and medical countermeasures, including monoclonal antibodies and vaccines. To carry out the strategies, she oversaw a health equity task force, which included community stakeholders such as the Black Coalition Against COVID-19, the Latino Connection, and a faith-based program that allowed people to get tested at their places of worship.
When lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) advocates charged that states were not collecting data early in the pandemic on sexual orientation or gender identity, in another historic move, Levine announced in March 2020 that Pennsylvania would begin collecting demographic data on the coronavirus, making it the first state in the country to do so.
Levine has garnered praise from many sources. “This is a proud moment for us,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement, calling her a “cherished and critical partner in our work to build a healthier America.” Alphonso David, then president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that Levine’s nomination to be the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health represented “real change” in the government’s approach to the coronavirus and LGBTQ+ health issues. Levine “led Pennsylvania’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic superbly,” he said.
She has also triggered a significant amount of outrage in conservative quarters. She was routinely castigated for her early actions in the pandemic. Writing for The American Spectator in May 2020, Paul Kengor, a former UPMC researcher, said UPMC’s overall handling of the virus was “impressive and inspired confidence.” However, tracking the data on fatalities, he said, he found the disproportionate number of deaths in nursing homes “alarming and strange.” Citing an investigative article in the Bucks County Courier Times, he blamed Pennsylvania officials—including Levine—for guidelines that directed licensed long-term care facilities to continue admitting new patients, including those discharged from hospitals back to nursing homes. However, Kengor claimed, the “partisan press” would protect Wolf and Levine: “Levine is a liberal darling as the nation’s first (and arguably highest-ranking) transgender public official.”
At the February 2021 federal confirmation hearing, Levine was pressed on data discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s public reports on nursing home coronavirus deaths and cases. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Spotlight PA reporting that found weekly reports released by the state health department were consistently missing data for more than 100 of the 693 nursing homes. Levine, in response, pointed to lags in the state’s electronic death reporting system and to slow uploads. Pennsylvania health officials also referred to a state law that prohibits the release of disease records by state or local authorities.
In a June 2020 opinion article, Levine wrote that the Pennsylvania Health Department had followed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, including limiting outside people from entering long-term care facilities. The Pennsylvania Health Department also sent thousands of shipments of personal protective equipment and conducted virtual inspections, including on-site inspections as warranted.
Despite those efforts, Levine said, “staff members who have dedicated their lives to caring for these vulnerable Pennsylvanians unknowingly contracted COVID-19 in their communities and carried it into these facilities.” She pointed out that residents who returned from hospitals had been isolated if they contracted COVID-19. Patients returning to nursing homes did not introduce COVID-19, Levine said, “because it was there that they first came into contact with the virus.” Moreover, those patients were isolated, just as they had been before they required hospital-level care, she added.
When a long-term care facility reports a case of COVID-19, Levine noted, the Pennsylvania Health Department considers it an outbreak and offers a variety of resources to the facility, including mitigation measures and the services of an infection control consultant, or even deploying the Pennsylvania National Guard to assist with staffing. Pennsylvania cannot force facilities to accept these services, she pointed out, but some refuse out of fear of receiving citations. “[O]ur top priority,” Levine said, “is halting COVID-19, not issuing citations.”
Her decisions on health restrictions and closures to combat the pandemic created controversy in the state, but much of the criticism also took aim at Levine identifying openly as transgender. Her selection as the first openly transgender official to be confirmed by the Senate has been targeted by conservative groups as a political gesture by President Biden. Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, posted on Facebook: “Biden gang playing quota politics with public health service.”
In her remarks to the Senate committee, however, Levine calmly noted that her appointment by Gov. Wolf was confirmed unanimously and that she was approved twice more on a bipartisan basis to be Secretary of Health. She met with nearly all of the senators personally. Her confirmation by the senate Republicans was particularly meaningful, she told NBC Out. “[They] judged me strictly on my professional qualifications.”
Social media has made much of Levine’s transgender identification, both pro and con. The Twitterverse, predictably, is packed with anti-Levine and anti-LGBTQ+ rants. But Levine’s rise has energized the LGBTQ+ community, who hail it as a breakthrough. Scout, the single-named executive director of the National LGBT Cancer Network, said, “The fact that she is trans is an inspiration for the many of us who have never had a role model this senior before.” Levine herself is determined to be a “beacon” in representing the LGBTQ+ community in her latest role at the corps: “Diversity makes us stronger,” she said.
“What people don’t understand, they fear,” Levine, who is a frequent public speaker, has said. “The more we can educate people and show that we’re productive members of the community—with families, lives, careers—that helps people understand us better.” That includes education of medical professionals. “We need to do a better job educating medical students about LGBT issues and transgender medicine,” she told NBC Out. She may need to start with the members of Congress. At Levine’s confirmation hearing to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health, Sen. Rand Paul, for instance, compared transgender surgery to “genital mutilation.”
HHS Secretary Becerra called Levine’s appointment as the first openly transgender four-star officer “a giant step forward toward equality as a nation.” US Surgeon General VADM Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said her appointment represents “an important step towards a more inclusive future and her service will undoubtedly advance the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps’ mission to protect, promote, and advance the health and safety of our nation.”
Levine told the Senate committee, “There is still so much more to do.”
“We each come to public service in our own unique way,” ADM Rachel Levine, MD, Assistant Secretary for Health at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee at her confirmation hearing in February 2021.
In her case, unique and history-making. Levine was confirmed on Tuesday as the first-ever openly transgender—and firstwoman—four-star admiral in the history of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. She is also the first openly transgender four-star officer and the first openly transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate. In fact, she is the nation’s highest-ranking openly transgender official—the first such across any of the eight uniformed services.
All those firsts aside, in her confirmation hearing remarks, ADM. Levine said, “At its core, my career has been about helping people live healthy lives.” She began her career at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York, in pediatric and adolescent medicine, focusing on mental and physical health. Moving to the Penn State College of Medicine, ADM Levine was a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry and vice-chair for clinical affairs for the Department of Pediatrics. At Penn State, she initiated the Division of Adolescent Medicine for the care of complex teens with medical and psychological problems. As chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, she also founded an eating disorders program, offering multidisciplinary treatment for children, adolescents, and adults.
In 2015, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf nominated ADM Levine to be Physician General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and she was confirmed unanimously by the state senate. In 2018, she was named Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health. In these roles, she tackled the state’s massive opioid misuse and overdose crisis. She focused on opioid stewardship, developed continuing medical education programs, and established prescribing guidelines and a “robust” prescription drug monitoring program. She traveled extensively throughout small communities, doing public events with local officials and residents to talk about opioid abuse. The efforts began, slowly, to pay off. In 2015, 3,383 people died of drug overdose in Pennsylvania, a 23% increase from 2014. By 2018, 65% of drug overdose deaths involved opioids, but the total number of deaths fell to 2,866.
One of her most significant accomplishments as Physician General, Levine said, was to issue the first-ever statewide standing order for distribution of the anti-overdose drug naloxone, allowing law enforcement to carry the drug and Pennsylvania citizens to buy itover the counter. According to the Pennsylvania Opioid Data Dashboard, between January 1, 2018, and October 9, 2021, 62,954 doses of naloxone were administered by EMS.
In another of Levine’s projects, the Pennsylvania Rural Health Model, the goal was to move rural hospitals from fee-for-service models to global budget payments, which she said, “aligned incentives for providers to deliver value-based care and for rural hospitals to transform their care to better meet community health needs.”
Working in tandem with HHS, Levine’s teams also set up a maternal mortality review committee “to better understand and respond to the causes of maternal deaths,” and worked to improve childhood immunization rates.
“Of course, our focus changed dramatically last year,” Levine said, “and COVID-19 became my most urgent and primary focus.” She concentrated on three key priorities: containment with expansion of testing and contact tracing; mitigation with masks and distancing; and medical countermeasures, including monoclonal antibodies and vaccines. To carry out the strategies, she oversaw a health equity task force, which included community stakeholders such as the Black Coalition Against COVID-19, the Latino Connection, and a faith-based program that allowed people to get tested at their places of worship.
When lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) advocates charged that states were not collecting data early in the pandemic on sexual orientation or gender identity, in another historic move, Levine announced in March 2020 that Pennsylvania would begin collecting demographic data on the coronavirus, making it the first state in the country to do so.
Levine has garnered praise from many sources. “This is a proud moment for us,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement, calling her a “cherished and critical partner in our work to build a healthier America.” Alphonso David, then president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that Levine’s nomination to be the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health represented “real change” in the government’s approach to the coronavirus and LGBTQ+ health issues. Levine “led Pennsylvania’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic superbly,” he said.
She has also triggered a significant amount of outrage in conservative quarters. She was routinely castigated for her early actions in the pandemic. Writing for The American Spectator in May 2020, Paul Kengor, a former UPMC researcher, said UPMC’s overall handling of the virus was “impressive and inspired confidence.” However, tracking the data on fatalities, he said, he found the disproportionate number of deaths in nursing homes “alarming and strange.” Citing an investigative article in the Bucks County Courier Times, he blamed Pennsylvania officials—including Levine—for guidelines that directed licensed long-term care facilities to continue admitting new patients, including those discharged from hospitals back to nursing homes. However, Kengor claimed, the “partisan press” would protect Wolf and Levine: “Levine is a liberal darling as the nation’s first (and arguably highest-ranking) transgender public official.”
At the February 2021 federal confirmation hearing, Levine was pressed on data discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s public reports on nursing home coronavirus deaths and cases. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Spotlight PA reporting that found weekly reports released by the state health department were consistently missing data for more than 100 of the 693 nursing homes. Levine, in response, pointed to lags in the state’s electronic death reporting system and to slow uploads. Pennsylvania health officials also referred to a state law that prohibits the release of disease records by state or local authorities.
In a June 2020 opinion article, Levine wrote that the Pennsylvania Health Department had followed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, including limiting outside people from entering long-term care facilities. The Pennsylvania Health Department also sent thousands of shipments of personal protective equipment and conducted virtual inspections, including on-site inspections as warranted.
Despite those efforts, Levine said, “staff members who have dedicated their lives to caring for these vulnerable Pennsylvanians unknowingly contracted COVID-19 in their communities and carried it into these facilities.” She pointed out that residents who returned from hospitals had been isolated if they contracted COVID-19. Patients returning to nursing homes did not introduce COVID-19, Levine said, “because it was there that they first came into contact with the virus.” Moreover, those patients were isolated, just as they had been before they required hospital-level care, she added.
When a long-term care facility reports a case of COVID-19, Levine noted, the Pennsylvania Health Department considers it an outbreak and offers a variety of resources to the facility, including mitigation measures and the services of an infection control consultant, or even deploying the Pennsylvania National Guard to assist with staffing. Pennsylvania cannot force facilities to accept these services, she pointed out, but some refuse out of fear of receiving citations. “[O]ur top priority,” Levine said, “is halting COVID-19, not issuing citations.”
Her decisions on health restrictions and closures to combat the pandemic created controversy in the state, but much of the criticism also took aim at Levine identifying openly as transgender. Her selection as the first openly transgender official to be confirmed by the Senate has been targeted by conservative groups as a political gesture by President Biden. Tom Fitton, president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, posted on Facebook: “Biden gang playing quota politics with public health service.”
In her remarks to the Senate committee, however, Levine calmly noted that her appointment by Gov. Wolf was confirmed unanimously and that she was approved twice more on a bipartisan basis to be Secretary of Health. She met with nearly all of the senators personally. Her confirmation by the senate Republicans was particularly meaningful, she told NBC Out. “[They] judged me strictly on my professional qualifications.”
Social media has made much of Levine’s transgender identification, both pro and con. The Twitterverse, predictably, is packed with anti-Levine and anti-LGBTQ+ rants. But Levine’s rise has energized the LGBTQ+ community, who hail it as a breakthrough. Scout, the single-named executive director of the National LGBT Cancer Network, said, “The fact that she is trans is an inspiration for the many of us who have never had a role model this senior before.” Levine herself is determined to be a “beacon” in representing the LGBTQ+ community in her latest role at the corps: “Diversity makes us stronger,” she said.
“What people don’t understand, they fear,” Levine, who is a frequent public speaker, has said. “The more we can educate people and show that we’re productive members of the community—with families, lives, careers—that helps people understand us better.” That includes education of medical professionals. “We need to do a better job educating medical students about LGBT issues and transgender medicine,” she told NBC Out. She may need to start with the members of Congress. At Levine’s confirmation hearing to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health, Sen. Rand Paul, for instance, compared transgender surgery to “genital mutilation.”
HHS Secretary Becerra called Levine’s appointment as the first openly transgender four-star officer “a giant step forward toward equality as a nation.” US Surgeon General VADM Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said her appointment represents “an important step towards a more inclusive future and her service will undoubtedly advance the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps’ mission to protect, promote, and advance the health and safety of our nation.”
Levine told the Senate committee, “There is still so much more to do.”
Real-world data favor invasive strategy for NSTEMI with CKD
Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.
“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.
Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.
Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.
A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.
Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”
He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”
Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”
For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.
In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.
Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.
Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease.
With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.
Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.
Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:
- CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
- CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
- CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
- ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)
“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.
A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.
Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).
Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.
Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.
“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”
Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.
“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.
Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.
Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.
A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.
Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”
He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”
Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”
For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.
In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.
Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.
Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease.
With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.
Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.
Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:
- CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
- CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
- CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
- ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)
“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.
A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.
Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).
Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.
Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.
“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”
Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.
“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.
Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.
Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.
A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.
Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”
He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”
Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”
For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.
In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.
Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.
Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease.
With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.
Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.
Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:
- CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
- CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
- CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
- ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)
“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.
A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.
Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).
Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.
Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.
“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”
Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stem cell transplant benefits in secondary progressive MS
, a new Italian study suggests.
In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.
“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.
Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.
Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.
“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.
“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.
Comparing treatment regimens
The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.
Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.
The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.
To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).
The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.
Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.
After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.
In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.
In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.
The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.
Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.
Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.
“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new Italian study suggests.
In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.
“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.
Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.
Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.
“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.
“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.
Comparing treatment regimens
The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.
Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.
The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.
To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).
The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.
Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.
After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.
In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.
In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.
The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.
Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.
Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.
“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new Italian study suggests.
In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.
“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.
Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.
Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.
“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.
“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.
Comparing treatment regimens
The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.
Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.
The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.
To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).
The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.
Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.
After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.
In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.
In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.
The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.
Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.
Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.
“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.
“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECTRIMS 2021
Identify patient and hospital factors to reduce maternal mortality
Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.
However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.
Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.
In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.
To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.
CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.
Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.
Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.
These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.
Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,
“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials
In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.
Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.
She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.
Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.
Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.
However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.
Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.
In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.
To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.
CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.
Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.
Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.
These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.
Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,
“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials
In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.
Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.
She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.
Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.
Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Maternal mortality is a public health crisis for all women, said Elizabeth A. Howell, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
The maternal mortality rate in the United States in 2018 was 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Howell said. Maternal mortality is defined as death during pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery; pregnancy-related mortality includes death during pregnancy or within 1 year of pregnancy, from pregnancy or as a result of any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy, according to the CDC.
However, “Black women are two to three times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause,” Dr. Howell said. These disparities are even more marked in some cities; data show that Black women in New York City are eight times more likely than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause, she noted.
Pregnancy-related mortality persists regardless of education level, and remains significantly higher in Black women, compared with White women with at least a college degree, Dr. Howell added.
In her presentation, Dr. Howell reviewed some top causes of maternal mortality overall, and potential factors driving disparities. Data from the CDC show cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and preeclampsia/eclampsia as the top three underlying causes of pregnancy-related deaths among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with mental health conditions, cardiovascular conditions, and hemorrhage in non-Hispanic White women, Dr. Howell said.
To help prevent maternal mortality across all populations, “It is important for us to think about the timing of deaths so we can better understand the causes,” said Dr. Howell.
CDC Vital Signs data show that approximately one-third of pregnancy-related deaths occur during pregnancy, but approximately 20% occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, she said.
Although cardiovascular conditions top the list of clinical causes of pregnancy-related maternal mortality, maternal self-harm should not be discounted, and is likely underreported, Dr. Howell said. Data show that the peak incidence of maternal suicide occurs between 9 and 12 months’ postpartum, and risk factors include major depression, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence, she noted.
Dr. Howell then shared the results of studies she conducted in 2020 and 2016 on racial disparities, hospital quality, and maternal mortality. One of her key findings in the 2020 study, presented at this year’s virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed that women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity, and an accompanying simulation/thought exercise showed that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately half of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women. An earlier study she published in 2016 of between-hospital differences in New York City showed that Black and Latina women were significantly more likely than White women to deliver in hospitals with higher rates of severe maternal mortality.
These findings illustrate that “racial segregation in neighborhoods is also part of the story,” of maternal mortality, Dr. Howell said.
Dr. Howell outlined ways the health care community can reduce severe maternal morbidity and mortality for all women, including promoting contraception and preconception health, improving postpartum management, eliminating bias, and using patient navigators as needed to enhance communication among the care team,
“Think about ways to engage the community,” in support of women’s pregnancy health, Dr. Howell said. She also emphasized the need to enroll more pregnant women in clinical trials.
Don’t exclude pregnant women from trials
In a follow-up session, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, expanded on opportunities to include pregnant women in clinical research.
Clinical trials for pregnant people fall into two categories, she noted; those studying interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes and those studying interventions for common medical conditions that coexist with pregnancy. These trials are either initiated by the investigators, conducted under contract, or federally funded, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Currently, the only obstetric clinical trials research network is the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, established in 1986 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The MFMU has conducted significant and life-saving research, but “we need more networks to focus on researching pregnancy complications,” Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman said. Once the infrastructure exists in multiple settings, the ability to conduct trials will improve, she said.
Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman stressed the need to engage and involve community-based physicians in clinical trials; using those relationships to enroll a more diverse population for whom working with their local physician would be more feasible than traveling to a larger clinical trial center.
She also commented on the need to include pregnant women in nonobstetric clinical trials. The exclusion of pregnant women from COVID-19 vaccine trials left clinicians with no information for guiding pregnant patients, she said. “It is important to think about why we are excluding pregnant women,” she said.
Finally, Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman recommended a national effort to coordinate and leverage EHR data, which could have an effect on reducing maternal morbidity by facilitating the study of nonobstetric interventions in pregnancy, such as behavior interventions and mental health care.
Dr. Howell and Dr. Gyamfi-Bannerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ADVANCING NIH RESEARCH ON THE HEALTH OF WOMEN
Beyond the headlines: A closer look at the USPSTF draft recs on aspirin
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/
REFERENCES
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
- National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
- American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/
Updated MELD score adds serum albumin, female sex
This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.
A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.
“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.
In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.
Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.
Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.
The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.
In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.
The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.
According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.
“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.
This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.
A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.
“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.
In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.
Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.
Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.
The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.
In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.
The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.
According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.
“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.
This article was updated Nov. 5, 2021.
A newly updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was effective for predicting short-term mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease and addressed important determinants of wait list outcomes that haven’t been addressed in previous versions, according to findings from a recent study. The new model, termed MELD 3.0, includes new variables such as female sex, serum albumin, and updated creatinine cutoffs.
“We believe that the new model represents an opportunity to lower wait list mortality in the United States and propose it to be considered to replace the current version of MELD in determining allocation priorities in liver transplantation,” wrote study authors W. Ray Kim, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Gastroenterology.
In patients with end-stage liver disease, the MELD score was shown to be a reliable predictor of short-term survival, according to the researchers. The original version of MELD consists of international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and serum concentrations of bilirubin and creatinine; MELDNa consists of the same with the addition of serum concentrations of total sodium. Since 2016, MELDNa has been utilized in the United States to allocate livers for transplant.
Despite the utility of the current MELD score, questions have been raised concerning the accuracy of the tool’s ability to predict mortality, including a study by Sumeet K. Asrani, MD, MSc, and colleagues. Changes in liver disease epidemiology, the introduction of newer therapies that alter prognosis, as well as increasing age and prevalence of comorbidities in transplant-eligible patients are several drivers for these concerns, according to Dr. Kim and colleagues. Also, there is an increasing concern regarding women and their potential disadvantages in the current system: At least one study has suggested that serum creatinine may overestimate renal function and consequently underestimate mortality risk in female patients, compared with men with the same creatinine level.
Dr. Kim and colleagues sought to further optimize the fit of the current MELD score by considering alternative interactions and including other variables relevant to predicting short-term mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. The study included patients who are registered on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files newly wait-listed from 2016 through 2018. The full cohort was divided 70:30 into a development set (n = 20,587) and a validation set (n = 8,823); there were no significant differences between the sets in respect to age, sex, race, or liver disease severity.
The investigators used univariable and multivariable regression models to predict 90-day survival following wait list registration. The 90-day Kaplan-Meier survival rate in the development set was 91.3%. Additionally, model fit was tested, and the investigators used the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to estimate the impact of replacing the current version of the MELD with MELD 3.0.
In the final MELD 3.0 model, the researchers included several additional variables such as female sex and serum albumin. Additionally, the final model was characterized by interactions between bilirubin and sodium as well as between albumin and creatinine. Also, an adjustment to the current version of MELD lowering the upper bound for creatinine from 4.0 mg/dL to 3.0 mg/dL.
The MELD 3.0 featured significantly better discrimination, compared with the MELDNa (C-statistic = 0.8693 vs. 0.8622, respectively; P < .01). In addition, the researchers wrote that the new MELD 3.0 score “correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women.” The MELD 3.0 score with albumin also led to fewer wait-list deaths, compared with the MELDNa, according to the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis (P = .02); the number for MELD 3.0 without albumin was not statistically significant.
According to the investigators, a cause of concern for the MELD 3.0 was the addition of albumin, as this variable may be vulnerable to manipulation. In addition, the researchers note that, while differences in wait list mortality and survival based on race/ethnicity were observed in the study, they were unable to describe the exact root causes of worse outcomes among patients belonging to minority groups. “Thus, inclusion in a risk prediction score without fully understanding the underlying reasons for the racial disparity may have unintended consequences,” the researchers wrote.
“Based on recent data consisting of liver transplant candidates in the United States, we identify additional variables that are meaningfully associated with short-term mortality, including female sex and serum albumin. We also found evidence to support lowering the serum creatinine ceiling to 3 mg/dL,” they wrote. “Based on these data, we created an updated version of the MELD score, which improves mortality prediction compared to the current MELDNa model, including the recognition of female sex as a risk factor for death.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Updated MS guidelines advocate earlier, more aggressive treatment
and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.
The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).
Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.
“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
New recommendations
New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.
“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.
Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.
The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:
- The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
- Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
- For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Progressive MS
- For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
- For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.
- For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent.
- Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.
Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs
- Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
- Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
- When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
- In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding
Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:
- Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
- Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
- For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits.
- For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:
1) treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2) treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)
- Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.
Treatment safety/monitoring
- When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
- Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
- Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
Long-lasting treatments
- When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
- Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.
The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).
Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.
“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
New recommendations
New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.
“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.
Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.
The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:
- The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
- Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
- For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Progressive MS
- For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
- For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.
- For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent.
- Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.
Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs
- Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
- Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
- When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
- In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding
Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:
- Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
- Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
- For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits.
- For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:
1) treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2) treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)
- Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.
Treatment safety/monitoring
- When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
- Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
- Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
Long-lasting treatments
- When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
- Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.
The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).
Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.
“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
New recommendations
New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.
“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.
Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.
The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:
- The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
- Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
- For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Progressive MS
- For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
- For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.
- For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent.
- Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.
Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs
- Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
- Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
- When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
- In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.
Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding
Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:
- Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
- Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
- For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits.
- For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:
1) treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2) treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)
- Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.
Treatment safety/monitoring
- When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
- Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
- Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
Long-lasting treatments
- When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
- Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From ECTRIMS 2021