Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

U.S. prescribing data from 160,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease showed a notable uptick in new prescriptions for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and less dramatic gains for glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists during 2019 and continuing into early 2020, compared with prior years, with usage levels of both classes during the first quarter of 2020 rivaling those of more traditional agents including metformin and insulin.

During the first 3 months of 2020, initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor constituted 13% of all new starts of an antidiabetes drug among adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). This compared with initiation rates during the same early 2020 period of 17% for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 19% for metformin, 16% for sulfonylureas, 15% for insulins, 14% for thiazolidinediones, and 6% for dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, the seven drug classes examined in a study published in Diabetes Care.

Early 2020 was the first time that starts of a GLP-1 receptor agonist ranked second (behind only metformin) among these seven drug classes in the studied U.S. population, and early 2020 also marked an unprecedentedly high start rate for SGLT2 inhibitors that nearly tripled the roughly 5% rate in place as recently as 2018.
 

Rises are ‘what we expected’

The recent rise of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these patients “was what we expected,” given the evidence for both classes in slowing progression of DKD, said Julie M. Paik, MD, senior author on the study and a nephrologist and pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“We’ve seen other beneficial drugs slow on the uptake, so it’s not surprising to see it here, and I’m optimistic” about further increases going forward, she said in an interview.

Both drug classes “were originally marketed as diabetes drugs,” and it is only since 2019, with the publication of trials showing dramatic renal benefits from canagliflozin (Invokana) in CREDENCE, and from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DAPA-CKD in 2020 that the evidence became truly compelling for SGLT2 inhibitors. This evidence also led to new renal-protection indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for canagliflozin and for dapagliflozin, noted Dr. Paik.

Evidence for renal protection also emerged in 2017 for the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza) in the LEADER trial, and for dulaglutide (Trulicity) in the AWARD-7 trial, although neither drug has received a renal indication in its labeling.

By 2020, guidelines for managing patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from the influential Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes organization had identified agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class as top-tier options, along with metformin, for treating these patients, with agents from the GLP-1 receptor agonist class as the top third class to add in patients who require additional glycemic control.

Additional analyses Dr. Paik and associates ran showed how this played out in terms of which specialists prescribed these drugs during the full period studied beginning in 2013. Throughout this roughly 7-year span, about 70% of the prescriptions written for either SGLT2 inhibitors or for GLP-1 receptor agonists were from internal medicine physicians, followed by about 20% written by endocrinologists. Prescriptions from nephrologists, as well as from cardiologists, have hovered at about 5% each, but seem poised to start rising based on the recently added indications and newer treatment recommendations.

“It’s good to see the recent uptick in use since 2019,” Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, commented in an interview. It’s a positive development for U.S. public health, “but we need to do more to disseminate and implement these life-, kidney-, and heart-saving therapies.”

Future use could approach 80% of DKD patients

Dr. Tuttle estimated that “target” levels of use for SGLT2 inhibitors and for GLP-1 receptor agonists “could reasonably approach 80%” for patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“We will likely move to combination therapy” with simultaneous use of agents from both classes in a targeted way using “precision phenotyping based on clinical characteristics, and eventually perhaps by biomarkers, kidney biopsies, or both.” Combined treatment with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be especially suited to patients with type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and need for better glycemic control and weight loss, a profile that is “pretty typical” in real-world practice, said Dr. Tuttle, a nephrologist and endocrinologist and executive director for research at Providence Healthcare in Spokane, Wash.
 

Study included patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage

The study used information in an Optum database that included patients enrolled in either commercial or in Medicare Advantage health insurance plans from 2013 to the first quarter of 2020. This included 160,489 adults with type 2 diabetes and DKD who started during that period at least one agent from any of the seven included drug classes.

This focus may have biased the findings because, overall, U.S. coverage of the relatively expensive agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes has often been problematic.

“There are issues of cost, coverage, and access” using these medications, as well as limited data on cost-effectiveness, Dr. Paik acknowledged. Additional issues that have helped generate prescribing lags include concerns about possible adverse effects, low familiarity by providers with these drugs early on, and limited trial experience using them in older patients. The process of clinicians growing more comfortable prescribing these new agents has depended on their “working through the evidence,” she explained.

The FDA’s approval in July 2021 of finerenone (Kerendia) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease threw yet another new variable into the prescribing mix for these patients.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are here to stay as a new standard of care for patients with diabetic kidney disease, but combination with finerenone might be especially useful for patients with diabetic kidney disease and heart failure,” Dr. Tuttle suggested. A new generation of clinical trials will likely soon launch to test these combinations, she predicted.

Dr. Paik had no disclosures. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

U.S. prescribing data from 160,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease showed a notable uptick in new prescriptions for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and less dramatic gains for glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists during 2019 and continuing into early 2020, compared with prior years, with usage levels of both classes during the first quarter of 2020 rivaling those of more traditional agents including metformin and insulin.

During the first 3 months of 2020, initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor constituted 13% of all new starts of an antidiabetes drug among adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). This compared with initiation rates during the same early 2020 period of 17% for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 19% for metformin, 16% for sulfonylureas, 15% for insulins, 14% for thiazolidinediones, and 6% for dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, the seven drug classes examined in a study published in Diabetes Care.

Early 2020 was the first time that starts of a GLP-1 receptor agonist ranked second (behind only metformin) among these seven drug classes in the studied U.S. population, and early 2020 also marked an unprecedentedly high start rate for SGLT2 inhibitors that nearly tripled the roughly 5% rate in place as recently as 2018.
 

Rises are ‘what we expected’

The recent rise of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these patients “was what we expected,” given the evidence for both classes in slowing progression of DKD, said Julie M. Paik, MD, senior author on the study and a nephrologist and pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“We’ve seen other beneficial drugs slow on the uptake, so it’s not surprising to see it here, and I’m optimistic” about further increases going forward, she said in an interview.

Both drug classes “were originally marketed as diabetes drugs,” and it is only since 2019, with the publication of trials showing dramatic renal benefits from canagliflozin (Invokana) in CREDENCE, and from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DAPA-CKD in 2020 that the evidence became truly compelling for SGLT2 inhibitors. This evidence also led to new renal-protection indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for canagliflozin and for dapagliflozin, noted Dr. Paik.

Evidence for renal protection also emerged in 2017 for the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza) in the LEADER trial, and for dulaglutide (Trulicity) in the AWARD-7 trial, although neither drug has received a renal indication in its labeling.

By 2020, guidelines for managing patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from the influential Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes organization had identified agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class as top-tier options, along with metformin, for treating these patients, with agents from the GLP-1 receptor agonist class as the top third class to add in patients who require additional glycemic control.

Additional analyses Dr. Paik and associates ran showed how this played out in terms of which specialists prescribed these drugs during the full period studied beginning in 2013. Throughout this roughly 7-year span, about 70% of the prescriptions written for either SGLT2 inhibitors or for GLP-1 receptor agonists were from internal medicine physicians, followed by about 20% written by endocrinologists. Prescriptions from nephrologists, as well as from cardiologists, have hovered at about 5% each, but seem poised to start rising based on the recently added indications and newer treatment recommendations.

“It’s good to see the recent uptick in use since 2019,” Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, commented in an interview. It’s a positive development for U.S. public health, “but we need to do more to disseminate and implement these life-, kidney-, and heart-saving therapies.”

Future use could approach 80% of DKD patients

Dr. Tuttle estimated that “target” levels of use for SGLT2 inhibitors and for GLP-1 receptor agonists “could reasonably approach 80%” for patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“We will likely move to combination therapy” with simultaneous use of agents from both classes in a targeted way using “precision phenotyping based on clinical characteristics, and eventually perhaps by biomarkers, kidney biopsies, or both.” Combined treatment with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be especially suited to patients with type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and need for better glycemic control and weight loss, a profile that is “pretty typical” in real-world practice, said Dr. Tuttle, a nephrologist and endocrinologist and executive director for research at Providence Healthcare in Spokane, Wash.
 

Study included patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage

The study used information in an Optum database that included patients enrolled in either commercial or in Medicare Advantage health insurance plans from 2013 to the first quarter of 2020. This included 160,489 adults with type 2 diabetes and DKD who started during that period at least one agent from any of the seven included drug classes.

This focus may have biased the findings because, overall, U.S. coverage of the relatively expensive agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes has often been problematic.

“There are issues of cost, coverage, and access” using these medications, as well as limited data on cost-effectiveness, Dr. Paik acknowledged. Additional issues that have helped generate prescribing lags include concerns about possible adverse effects, low familiarity by providers with these drugs early on, and limited trial experience using them in older patients. The process of clinicians growing more comfortable prescribing these new agents has depended on their “working through the evidence,” she explained.

The FDA’s approval in July 2021 of finerenone (Kerendia) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease threw yet another new variable into the prescribing mix for these patients.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are here to stay as a new standard of care for patients with diabetic kidney disease, but combination with finerenone might be especially useful for patients with diabetic kidney disease and heart failure,” Dr. Tuttle suggested. A new generation of clinical trials will likely soon launch to test these combinations, she predicted.

Dr. Paik had no disclosures. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

U.S. prescribing data from 160,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease showed a notable uptick in new prescriptions for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and less dramatic gains for glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists during 2019 and continuing into early 2020, compared with prior years, with usage levels of both classes during the first quarter of 2020 rivaling those of more traditional agents including metformin and insulin.

During the first 3 months of 2020, initiation of a SGLT2 inhibitor constituted 13% of all new starts of an antidiabetes drug among adults with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). This compared with initiation rates during the same early 2020 period of 17% for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 19% for metformin, 16% for sulfonylureas, 15% for insulins, 14% for thiazolidinediones, and 6% for dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, the seven drug classes examined in a study published in Diabetes Care.

Early 2020 was the first time that starts of a GLP-1 receptor agonist ranked second (behind only metformin) among these seven drug classes in the studied U.S. population, and early 2020 also marked an unprecedentedly high start rate for SGLT2 inhibitors that nearly tripled the roughly 5% rate in place as recently as 2018.
 

Rises are ‘what we expected’

The recent rise of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these patients “was what we expected,” given the evidence for both classes in slowing progression of DKD, said Julie M. Paik, MD, senior author on the study and a nephrologist and pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“We’ve seen other beneficial drugs slow on the uptake, so it’s not surprising to see it here, and I’m optimistic” about further increases going forward, she said in an interview.

Both drug classes “were originally marketed as diabetes drugs,” and it is only since 2019, with the publication of trials showing dramatic renal benefits from canagliflozin (Invokana) in CREDENCE, and from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DAPA-CKD in 2020 that the evidence became truly compelling for SGLT2 inhibitors. This evidence also led to new renal-protection indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for canagliflozin and for dapagliflozin, noted Dr. Paik.

Evidence for renal protection also emerged in 2017 for the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza) in the LEADER trial, and for dulaglutide (Trulicity) in the AWARD-7 trial, although neither drug has received a renal indication in its labeling.

By 2020, guidelines for managing patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from the influential Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes organization had identified agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class as top-tier options, along with metformin, for treating these patients, with agents from the GLP-1 receptor agonist class as the top third class to add in patients who require additional glycemic control.

Additional analyses Dr. Paik and associates ran showed how this played out in terms of which specialists prescribed these drugs during the full period studied beginning in 2013. Throughout this roughly 7-year span, about 70% of the prescriptions written for either SGLT2 inhibitors or for GLP-1 receptor agonists were from internal medicine physicians, followed by about 20% written by endocrinologists. Prescriptions from nephrologists, as well as from cardiologists, have hovered at about 5% each, but seem poised to start rising based on the recently added indications and newer treatment recommendations.

“It’s good to see the recent uptick in use since 2019,” Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, commented in an interview. It’s a positive development for U.S. public health, “but we need to do more to disseminate and implement these life-, kidney-, and heart-saving therapies.”

Future use could approach 80% of DKD patients

Dr. Tuttle estimated that “target” levels of use for SGLT2 inhibitors and for GLP-1 receptor agonists “could reasonably approach 80%” for patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease.

“We will likely move to combination therapy” with simultaneous use of agents from both classes in a targeted way using “precision phenotyping based on clinical characteristics, and eventually perhaps by biomarkers, kidney biopsies, or both.” Combined treatment with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be especially suited to patients with type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and need for better glycemic control and weight loss, a profile that is “pretty typical” in real-world practice, said Dr. Tuttle, a nephrologist and endocrinologist and executive director for research at Providence Healthcare in Spokane, Wash.
 

Study included patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage coverage

The study used information in an Optum database that included patients enrolled in either commercial or in Medicare Advantage health insurance plans from 2013 to the first quarter of 2020. This included 160,489 adults with type 2 diabetes and DKD who started during that period at least one agent from any of the seven included drug classes.

This focus may have biased the findings because, overall, U.S. coverage of the relatively expensive agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes has often been problematic.

“There are issues of cost, coverage, and access” using these medications, as well as limited data on cost-effectiveness, Dr. Paik acknowledged. Additional issues that have helped generate prescribing lags include concerns about possible adverse effects, low familiarity by providers with these drugs early on, and limited trial experience using them in older patients. The process of clinicians growing more comfortable prescribing these new agents has depended on their “working through the evidence,” she explained.

The FDA’s approval in July 2021 of finerenone (Kerendia) for treating patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease threw yet another new variable into the prescribing mix for these patients.

“SGLT2 inhibitors are here to stay as a new standard of care for patients with diabetic kidney disease, but combination with finerenone might be especially useful for patients with diabetic kidney disease and heart failure,” Dr. Tuttle suggested. A new generation of clinical trials will likely soon launch to test these combinations, she predicted.

Dr. Paik had no disclosures. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.