User login
NfL beats T-tau as a prognostic marker of cognitive decline
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
FDA moves to ban menthol in cigarettes
The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.
Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.
Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.
But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.
The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.
The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.
Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.
Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.
“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”
The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”
Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.
The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”
The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.
Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”
The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.
Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.
“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.
The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.
Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.
Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.
But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.
The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.
The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.
Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.
Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.
“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”
The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”
Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.
The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”
The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.
Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”
The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.
Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.
“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.
The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration said that within a year it will ban menthol in cigarettes and ban all flavors including menthol in cigars.
Menthol makes it easier to start smoking, and also enhances the effects of nicotine, making it more addictive and harder to quit, the FDA said in announcing its actions on Thursday.
Nineteen organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and the National Medical Association – have pushed the FDA to ban menthol for years. The agency banned all flavors in cigarettes in 2009 but did not take any action against menthol. In 2013, the groups filed a petition demanding that the FDA ban menthol, too. The agency responded months later with a notice that it would start the process.
But it never took any action. Action on Smoking and Health and the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, later joined by the AMA and the NMA, sued in 2020 to compel the agency to do something. Now it has finally agreed to act.
The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council welcomed the move but said the fight is not over and encouraged tobacco control activists to fight to ban menthol tobacco products at the local, state and federal level. “We know that this rule-making process could take years and we know that the tobacco industry will continue to do everything in their power to derail any attempt to remove their deadly products from the market,” Phillip Gardiner, MD, council cochair, said in a statement.
The AMA is urging the FDA to quickly implement the ban and remove the products “without further delay,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
“FDA’s long-awaited decision to take action to eliminate menthol flavoring in cigarettes and all flavors in cigars ends a decades-long deference to the tobacco industry, which has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to profit from products that result in death,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in her own statement.
Ms. Lacasse said banning menthol will help eliminate health disparities. She said 86% of Black people who smoke use menthol cigarettes, compared with 46% of Hispanic people who smoke, 39% of Asian people who smoke, and 29% of White people who smoke. “FDA’s actions today send a clear message that Big Tobacco’s strategy to profit off addicting Black communities will no longer be tolerated,” she said.
Not all groups are on board, however. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations wrote to the country’s top health officials urging them to reconsider.
“Such a ban will trigger criminal penalties which will disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction,” the letter says. “A ban will also lead to unconstitutional policing and other negative interactions with local law enforcement.”
The letter calls the proposed ban “well intentioned,” but said any effort to reduce death and disease from tobacco “must avoid solutions that will create yet another reason for armed police to engage citizens on the street based on pretext or conduct that does not pose a threat to public safety.”
Instead of a ban, the organizations said, policy makers should consider increased education for adults and minors, stop-smoking programs, and increased funding for health centers in communities of color.
The Biden administration, however, pressed the point that banning menthol will bring many positives. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD said in a statement that banning menthol “will help significantly reduce youth initiation, increase the chances of smoking cessation among current smokers, and address health disparities experienced by communities of color, low-income populations, and LGBTQ-plus individuals, all of whom are far more likely to use these tobacco products.”
The FDA cited data showing that, in the first year or so after a ban goes into effect, an additional 923,000 smokers would quit, including 230,000 African Americans. Another study suggests that 633,000 deaths would be averted, including 237,000 Black Americans.
Dr. Woodcock added that, “armed with strong scientific evidence, and with full support from the [Biden] administration, we believe these actions will launch us on a trajectory toward ending tobacco-related disease and death in the U.S.”
The FDA estimates that 18.6 million Americans who are current smokers use menthol cigarettes, with a disproportionately high number being Black people. Menthol cigarette use among Black and Hispanic youth increased from 2011 to 2018, but declined for non-Hispanic White youth.
Flavored mass-produced cigars and cigarillos are disproportionately popular among youth, especially non-Hispanic Black high school students, who in 2020 reported past 30-day cigar smoking at levels twice as high as their White counterparts, said the FDA. Three-quarters of 12- to 17-year-olds reported they smoke cigars because they like the flavors. In 2020, more young people tried a cigar every day than tried a cigarette, reports the agency.
“This long-overdue decision will protect future generations of young people from nicotine addiction, especially Black children and communities, which have disproportionately suffered from menthol tobacco use due to targeted efforts from the tobacco industry,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.
The FDA’s announcement “is only a first step that must be followed with urgent, comprehensive action to remove these flavored products from the market,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Investigational drug reduces brain lesions in highly active MS
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2021
Doctors more likely to prescribe opioids to COVID ‘long-haulers,’ raising addiction fears
COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.
A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.
For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.
Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.
He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”
The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.
The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.
“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”
Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”
As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.
More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.
The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”
Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.
Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.
“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.
While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.
Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.
“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.
Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.
The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.
The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.
“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.
Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.
The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”
Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.
“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.
A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.
For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.
Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.
He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”
The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.
The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.
“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”
Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”
As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.
More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.
The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”
Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.
Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.
“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.
While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.
Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.
“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.
Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.
The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.
The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.
“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.
Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.
The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”
Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.
“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.
A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.
For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.
Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.
He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”
The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.
The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.
“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”
Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”
As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.
More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.
The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”
Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.
Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.
“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.
While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.
Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.
“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.
Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.
The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.
The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.
“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.
Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.
The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”
Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.
“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Atopic Dermatitis (AD) Signs and Symptoms
Rituximab benefits seen in neuropsychiatric lupus
Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).
Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.
Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”
The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.
Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”
Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus
Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”
Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.
Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.
“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
About the BILAG-BR and results
“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.
Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.
A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.
The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.
A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.
The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.
BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).
There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).
Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).
Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).
Limitations
“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.
“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.
“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.
Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”
Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.
Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.
Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).
Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.
Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”
The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.
Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”
Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus
Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”
Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.
Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.
“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
About the BILAG-BR and results
“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.
Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.
A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.
The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.
A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.
The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.
BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).
There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).
Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).
Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).
Limitations
“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.
“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.
“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.
Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”
Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.
Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.
Patients with neuropsychiatric manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE) seem to benefit from rituximab (Rituxan) therapy, according to data from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR).
Indeed, the percentage of patients with active disease, as scored by the BILAG-2004 index or SLEDAI-2K (SLE Disease Activity Index 2000), fell significantly (P < .0001) when comparing pre- and postrituximab treatment scores. There was also a reduction in the dose of oral steroids used.
Interestingly, the use of concomitant cyclophosphamide might enhance the level of improvement seen in some patients, Trixy David, MBBS, reported during an abstract session at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
“Larger-scale studies are warranted to establish the effectiveness of rituximab alone, or in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the treatment neuropsychiatric lupus,” said Dr. David, a clinical research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) and specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Manchester University National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Neil Basu, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the virtual session, called the findings “enlightening” and “descriptive.”
The study “provides some interesting data, which should be tested in a robust, randomized clinical trial,” he agreed, and not that clinicians should now start using rituximab for their NPSLE cases.
Dr. Basu, who is a clinical senior lecturer in rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, added: “It is really important that we do these studies to help support a rationale for such a trial, which are obviously very expensive and require strong evidence before we go down that track. I think these data have really been quite enlightening in that respect.”
Rationale for rituximab in neuropsychiatric lupus
Managing patients with NPSLE remains an area of substantial unmet need. According to a recent review in Rheumatology, “there is a dearth of controlled clinical trials to guide management” and “therapeutic options include symptomatic, antithrombotic, and immunosuppressive agents that are supported by observational cohort studies.”
Despite being seen in at least half of all patients with SLE, neuropsychiatric disease “is not very well studied in patients with lupus, as a lot of large-scale trials tend to exclude patients with active neurological disease,” Dr. David said.
Although it is unclear why neuropsychiatric disease occurs in SLE, it could be “as a result of vascular injury or disruption of the blood brain barrier, thereby allowing the passive diffusion of autoantibodies and cytokines across through the cerebral spinal fluid, thereby generating a proinflammatory response,” Dr. David suggested.
“We know B cells are involved in the pathogenesis of lupus, and rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20-positive B cells and mediates transient B-cell depletion,” she said. Notably, there have been some small studies suggesting that rituximab may be effective in neuropsychiatric lupus, and it is currently widely used to treat refractory lupus in the United Kingdom.
About the BILAG-BR and results
“Our aim was to describe the baseline characteristics and short-term effectiveness of rituximab in patients treated for neuropsychiatric lupus within the BILAG-BR,” Dr. David explained.
Started in 2009, the BILAG-BR now contains information on more than 1,400 individuals with SLE who have been recruited at 62 centers in the United Kingdom. Its purpose is to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of biologic drugs versus standard immunosuppressive therapy such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine. To date, 1,229 patients have been treated with biologics, of whom 1,056 have received rituximab.
A total of 74 rituximab-treated patients were identified as having active neuropsychiatric disease, making this “the largest prospective observational cohort to date, to our knowledge,” Dr. David said.
The median age of patients was 45.5 years, the majority was female (82%) and White (74%). The median disease duration was 11.5 years.
A total of 96% had multiple organ involvement and not just neuropsychiatric disease, and 91% were positive for antineutrophil antibodies.
The top six neuropsychiatric manifestations were cognitive dysfunction and lupus headache (both affecting 27.5% of patients); acute confessional state or mononeuropathy (each seen in 10% of patients); and seizure disorder and polyneuropathy, seen in a respective 8.6% and 8.7% of patients. These findings are in line with a 2011 meta-analysis, Dr. David pointed out.
BILAG-2004 scores before and after rituximab treatment were available for 50 patients. The number of patients with a BILAG A score dropped from 24 (48%) at baseline to 7 (14%) after treatment with rituximab, and the number with a BILAG B score declined from 26 (52%) at baseline to 4 (8%) after rituximab (both P < .0001).
There was also a reduction following rituximab treatment in the percentage of patients categorized as having mainly central nervous system disease (70% vs. 11%), peripheral nervous system disease (19% vs. 6%), or both (11% vs. 8%).
Total SLEDAI-2K scores were also reduced following rituximab treatment, from a median of 12 at baseline to 2 (P < .0001).
Pre- and postrituximab oral prednisolone doses were a median of 15 mg and 10 mg (P = .009).
Limitations
“Our data are from a real-world setting of patients who had active neuropsychiatric disease and were treated with rituximab,” Dr. David said. There are of course many limitations that go hand in hand with observational studies.
“There was the issue of missing data,” Dr. David said. It was difficult or not possible to determine what doses of steroids patients were taking after rituximab therapy, particularly in terms of intravenous steroids, and what doses of any other concomitant disease-modifying therapy might have been around the time that patients initiated or stopped rituximab treatment.
“These could have acted as potential confounders,” she acknowledged.
Dr. Basu noted: “My major haziness from it is the uncertainty of knowing why these patients improved. Yes, they had rituximab, but I’m sure also that they probably received high doses of steroids if they had quite severe CNS lupus which was categorized as a BILAG-A or a B.”
Patients may also be given methylprednisolone when clinicians are really concerned, he continued, and “as was quite clearly pointed out,” there was quite a lot of missing data from a steroid perspective.
Dr. David and coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest. The BILAG-BR is supported by funding from Lupus UK, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. Basu did not state having any disclosures.
FROM BSR 2021
Consider risk for Barrett’s esophagus after bariatric surgery
Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.
Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.
In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.
Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).
However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.
Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.
“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
Consider surveillance for Barrett’s
The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”
Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.
“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.
Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.
In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.
Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).
However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.
Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.
“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
Consider surveillance for Barrett’s
The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”
Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.
“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
Barrett’s esophagus occurred in nearly 12% of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy after sleeve gastrectomy, but it was not associated with postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), based on data from 10 studies that totaled 680 adult patients.
Sleeve gastrectomy has become more popular in recent years as an effective strategy for patients with severe obesity, wrote Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. However, GERD is a common concern for patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus. However, the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the sleeve gastrectomy population has not been examined.
In a meta-analysis published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed 10 studies that totaled 680 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy 6 months to 10 years after a sleeve gastrectomy procedure. The primary outcome was Barrett’s esophagus prevalence in sleeve gastrectomy patients, with the prevalence of erosive esophagitis and GERD at follow-up as secondary outcomes.
Overall, 54 patients developed Barrett’s esophagus, for a pooled prevalence of 11.6%, and all cases were nondysplastic and de novo. There was no significant association between Barrett’s esophagus and the presence of postoperative GERD, the researchers said (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .37).
However, the rate of erosive esophagitis increased by 86% in five studies with long-term follow-up and by 35% in two studies with short-term follow-up, which suggests an increased risk of 13% each year after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.
Besides the risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, “the risk of [erosive esophagitis] is also of significant interest and shares the same pathophysiology with [Barrett’s esophagus] and GERD,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and the focus on Barrett’s esophagus rather than erosive esophagitis or GERD as the primary outcome, the researchers noted. However, the results indicate that sleeve gastrectomy patients are at increased risk for Barrett’s esophagus, and larger studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology. Furthermore, although there is some debate regarding the risk of GERD and erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy, the authors wrote that the data from their study showed a “consistent and substantial trend” toward more erosive esophagitis after sleeve gastrectomy.
“Gastroenterologists, primary care providers, and bariatric surgeons should be aware” of the data and should discuss the risks of sleeve gastrectomy with patients before the procedure, including the risks and benefits of postprocedure screening for Barrett’s esophagus, they concluded.
Consider surveillance for Barrett’s
The study is important because of the increased rates of GERD and potentially Barrett’s esophagus that have been noted after sleeve gastrectomy, Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.
“Many of these studies have been small, and the findings of meta-analyses have been limited by high heterogeneity,” he noted. “With the rise in popularity of sleeve gastrectomy, it is important to accurately assess potential long-term complications.”
Dr. Ketwaroo said he was not surprised by the study findings given several reports of increased GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. “Given the accepted pathophysiology of Barrett’s esophagus, I anticipated increased risk of Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy as well.
“Clinicians should consider surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy, and possible early proton pump inhibitor use for both GERD/erosive esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus chemoprophylaxis. Patients with longer-segment or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus prior to sleeve gastrectomy may have to be monitored more closely after surgery,” he said.
Dr. Ketwaroo noted that the study was limited by the small sample size, “with only approximately 50 patients with Barrett’s esophagus after surgery among 680 overall.” He emphasized that “we will need a much larger prospective study to confirm this finding. Additionally, I would want to explore if sleeve gastrectomy increases rate of progression of dysplasia in those who develop Barrett’s esophagus.”
The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Qumseya had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ketwaroo serves on the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.
Help your patients better understand the risks, testing, and treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus by sharing education from the AGA GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/BE.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
FMT cuts risk of bloodstream infections in patients with recurrent CDI
Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.
Study design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli in Rome.
Synopsis: In this study, 290 patients with rCDIs were randomized to FMT (109 patients) or antibiotic therapy (181 patients). Only patients with their first rCDIs were included. The primary outcome was the development of primary BSI after treatment of rCDI and within a 90-day follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization and overall survival at 90 days.
Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.
Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.
Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.
Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.
Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.
Study design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli in Rome.
Synopsis: In this study, 290 patients with rCDIs were randomized to FMT (109 patients) or antibiotic therapy (181 patients). Only patients with their first rCDIs were included. The primary outcome was the development of primary BSI after treatment of rCDI and within a 90-day follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization and overall survival at 90 days.
Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.
Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.
Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.
Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.
Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.
Study design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli in Rome.
Synopsis: In this study, 290 patients with rCDIs were randomized to FMT (109 patients) or antibiotic therapy (181 patients). Only patients with their first rCDIs were included. The primary outcome was the development of primary BSI after treatment of rCDI and within a 90-day follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization and overall survival at 90 days.
Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.
Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.
Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.
Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.
CDC guidelines coming on long COVID
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is finalizing new guidelines to help clinicians diagnose and manage long COVID, or postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In a day-long congressional hearing on April 28, John Brooks, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, testified that the guidelines were going through the clearance process at the agency, but would be forthcoming.
“They should be coming out very shortly,” Dr. Brooks said.
The guidelines, which were developed in collaboration with newly established long-COVID clinics and patient advocacy groups, will “illustrate how to diagnose and begin to pull together what we know about management,” of the complex condition, he said.
For many doctors and patients who are struggling to understand symptoms that persist for months after the initial viral infection, the guidelines can’t come soon enough.
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who also testified at the hearing, estimated that as many as 3 million people could be left with chronic health problems after even mild COVID infections.
“I can’t overstate how serious this issue is for the health of our nation,” he said.
Dr. Collins said his estimate was based on studies showing that roughly 10% of people who get COVID could be affected by this and whose “long-term course is uncertain,” he said. So far, more than 32 million Americans are known to have been infected with the new coronavirus.
“We need to make sure we put our arms around them and bring answers and care to them,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Jennifer Possick, MD, who directs the post-COVID recovery program at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, testified that the tidal wave of patients she and her colleagues were seeing was overwhelming.
“We are a well-resourced program at an academic medical center, but we are swamped by the need in our community. This year, we have seen more patients with post COVID-19 conditions in our clinic alone than we have new cases of asthma and COPD combined,” she said. “The magnitude of the challenge is daunting.”
Dr. Possick estimated that there are “over 60” clinics in the United States that have started to treat long-COVID patients, but said they are grassroots efforts and all very different from each other.
“Whoever had the resources, had the time, [and] was able to take the initiative and forge to the relationships because most of them are multidisciplinary, did so,” she said.
Patients testify
Several representatives shared moving personal stories of loved ones or staffers who remained ill months after a COVID diagnosis.
Rep. Ann Kuster, from New Hampshire, talked about her 34-year-old niece, a member of the U.S. Ski Team, who had COVID just over a year ago and “continues to struggle with everything, even the simplest activities of daily living” she said. “She has to choose between taking a shower or making dinner. I’m so proud of her for hanging in there.”
Long-COVID patients invited to testify by the subcommittee described months of disability that left them with soaring medical bills and no ability to work to pay them.
“I am now a poor, Black, disabled woman, living with long COVID,” said Chimere Smith, who said she had been a school teacher in Baltimore. “Saying it aloud makes it no more easy to accept.”
She said COVID had affected her ability to think clearly and caused debilitating fatigue, which prevented her from working. She said she lost her vision for almost 5 months because doctors misdiagnosed a cataract caused by long COVID as dry eye.
“If I did not have a loving family, I [would] be speaking to you today [from] my car, the only property I now own.”
Ms. Smith said that long-COVID clinics, which are mostly housed within academic medical centers, were not going to be accessible for all long-haulers, who are disproportionately women of color. She has started a clinic, based out of her church, to help other patients from her community.
“No one wants to hear that long COVID has decimated my life or the lives of other black women in less than a year,” Ms. Smith said. “We’ve just been waiting and hoping for compassionate doctors and politicians who would acknowledge us.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adjuvant palbociclib fails in early breast cancer
Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.
Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.
Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.
Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.
Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.
Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.
Key clinical point: The addition of palbociclib to estrogen therapy for 1 year does not improve invasive disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with hormone-receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-negative early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Major finding: Palbociclib did not improve invasive DFS vs. placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .525) after a median follow-up of 42.8 months. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly higher in the palbociclib group. Eight fatal serious adverse events were reported.
Study details: A phase 3, double-blind, randomized PENELOPE-B study evaluated 1,250 high-risk patients with HR+, HER-negative early breast cancer who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received estrogen therapy with either palbociclib or placebo.
Disclosures: The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving consulting, honoraria, travel/accomodation expenses and research funding outside the study work. Some of the authors declared being employee of and/or stocks/ownership interests of various sources including Pfizer.
Source: Loibl S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639.