User login
Expert panel addresses gaps in acne guidelines
A distinguished .
“The challenge with acne guidelines is they mainly focus on facial acne and they’re informed by randomized controlled trials which are conducted over a relatively short period of time. Given that acne is a chronic disease, this actually produces a lack of clarity on multiple issues, including things like truncal acne, treatment escalation and de-escalation, maintenance therapy, patient perspective, and longitudinal management,” Alison Layton, MBChB, said in presenting the findings of the Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts (PACE) panel at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The PACE panel highlighted two key unmet needs in acne care as the dearth of guidance on how to implement patient-centered management in clinical practice, and the absence of high-quality evidence on how best to handle long-term maintenance therapy: When to initiate it, the best regimens, and when to escalate, switch, or de-escalate it, added Dr. Layton, a dermatologist at Hull York Medical School, Heslington, England, and associate medical director for research and development at Harrogate and District National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Most of the 13 dermatologists on the PACE panel were coauthors of the current U.S., European, or Canadian acne guidelines, so they are closely familiar with the guidelines’ strengths and shortcomings. For example, the American contingent includes Linda Stein Gold, MD, Detroit; Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, New Brunswick, NJ; Julie C. Harper, MD, Birmingham, Ala.; and Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, of Georgia, all members of the work group that created the current American Academy of Dermatology guidelines.
Strong points of the current guidelines are the high-quality, evidence-based recommendations on initial treatment of facial acne. However, a major weakness of existing guidelines is reflected in the fact that well over 40% of patients relapse after acne therapy, and these relapses can significantly impair quality of life and productivity, said Dr. Layton, one of several PACE panelists who coauthored the current European Dermatology Forum acne guidelines.
The PACE panel utilized a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on their recommendations. Ten panelists rated current practice guidelines as “somewhat useful” for informing long-term management, two dermatologists deemed existing guidelines “not at all useful” in this regard, and one declined to answer the question.
“None of us felt the guidelines were very useful,” Dr. Layton noted.
It will take time, money, and research commitment to generate compelling data on best practices for long-term maintenance therapy for acne. Other areas in sore need of high-quality studies to improve the evidence-based care of acne include the appropriate length of antibiotic therapy for acne and how to effectively combine topical agents with oral antibiotics to support appropriate use of antimicrobials. In the meantime, the PACE group plans to issue interim practical consensus recommendations to beef up existing guidelines.
With regard to practical recommendations to improve patient-centered care, there was strong consensus among the panelists that acne management in certain patient subgroups requires special attention. These subgroups include patients with darker skin phototypes, heavy exercisers, transgender patients and patients with hormonal conditions, pregnant or breast-feeding women, patients with psychiatric issues, and children under age 10.
PACE panelists agreed that a physician-patient discussion about long-term treatment expectations is “paramount” to effective patient-centered management.
“To ensure a positive consultation experience, physicians should prioritize discussion of efficacy expectations, including timelines and treatment duration,” Dr. Layton continued.
Other key topics to address in promoting patient-centered management of acne include discussion of medication adverse effects and tolerability, application technique for topical treatments, the importance of adherence, and recommendations regarding a daily skin care routine, according to the PACE group.
Dr. Layton reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, which funded the PACE project, as well as half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
A distinguished .
“The challenge with acne guidelines is they mainly focus on facial acne and they’re informed by randomized controlled trials which are conducted over a relatively short period of time. Given that acne is a chronic disease, this actually produces a lack of clarity on multiple issues, including things like truncal acne, treatment escalation and de-escalation, maintenance therapy, patient perspective, and longitudinal management,” Alison Layton, MBChB, said in presenting the findings of the Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts (PACE) panel at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The PACE panel highlighted two key unmet needs in acne care as the dearth of guidance on how to implement patient-centered management in clinical practice, and the absence of high-quality evidence on how best to handle long-term maintenance therapy: When to initiate it, the best regimens, and when to escalate, switch, or de-escalate it, added Dr. Layton, a dermatologist at Hull York Medical School, Heslington, England, and associate medical director for research and development at Harrogate and District National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Most of the 13 dermatologists on the PACE panel were coauthors of the current U.S., European, or Canadian acne guidelines, so they are closely familiar with the guidelines’ strengths and shortcomings. For example, the American contingent includes Linda Stein Gold, MD, Detroit; Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, New Brunswick, NJ; Julie C. Harper, MD, Birmingham, Ala.; and Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, of Georgia, all members of the work group that created the current American Academy of Dermatology guidelines.
Strong points of the current guidelines are the high-quality, evidence-based recommendations on initial treatment of facial acne. However, a major weakness of existing guidelines is reflected in the fact that well over 40% of patients relapse after acne therapy, and these relapses can significantly impair quality of life and productivity, said Dr. Layton, one of several PACE panelists who coauthored the current European Dermatology Forum acne guidelines.
The PACE panel utilized a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on their recommendations. Ten panelists rated current practice guidelines as “somewhat useful” for informing long-term management, two dermatologists deemed existing guidelines “not at all useful” in this regard, and one declined to answer the question.
“None of us felt the guidelines were very useful,” Dr. Layton noted.
It will take time, money, and research commitment to generate compelling data on best practices for long-term maintenance therapy for acne. Other areas in sore need of high-quality studies to improve the evidence-based care of acne include the appropriate length of antibiotic therapy for acne and how to effectively combine topical agents with oral antibiotics to support appropriate use of antimicrobials. In the meantime, the PACE group plans to issue interim practical consensus recommendations to beef up existing guidelines.
With regard to practical recommendations to improve patient-centered care, there was strong consensus among the panelists that acne management in certain patient subgroups requires special attention. These subgroups include patients with darker skin phototypes, heavy exercisers, transgender patients and patients with hormonal conditions, pregnant or breast-feeding women, patients with psychiatric issues, and children under age 10.
PACE panelists agreed that a physician-patient discussion about long-term treatment expectations is “paramount” to effective patient-centered management.
“To ensure a positive consultation experience, physicians should prioritize discussion of efficacy expectations, including timelines and treatment duration,” Dr. Layton continued.
Other key topics to address in promoting patient-centered management of acne include discussion of medication adverse effects and tolerability, application technique for topical treatments, the importance of adherence, and recommendations regarding a daily skin care routine, according to the PACE group.
Dr. Layton reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, which funded the PACE project, as well as half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
A distinguished .
“The challenge with acne guidelines is they mainly focus on facial acne and they’re informed by randomized controlled trials which are conducted over a relatively short period of time. Given that acne is a chronic disease, this actually produces a lack of clarity on multiple issues, including things like truncal acne, treatment escalation and de-escalation, maintenance therapy, patient perspective, and longitudinal management,” Alison Layton, MBChB, said in presenting the findings of the Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts (PACE) panel at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The PACE panel highlighted two key unmet needs in acne care as the dearth of guidance on how to implement patient-centered management in clinical practice, and the absence of high-quality evidence on how best to handle long-term maintenance therapy: When to initiate it, the best regimens, and when to escalate, switch, or de-escalate it, added Dr. Layton, a dermatologist at Hull York Medical School, Heslington, England, and associate medical director for research and development at Harrogate and District National Health Service Foundation Trust.
Most of the 13 dermatologists on the PACE panel were coauthors of the current U.S., European, or Canadian acne guidelines, so they are closely familiar with the guidelines’ strengths and shortcomings. For example, the American contingent includes Linda Stein Gold, MD, Detroit; Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, New Brunswick, NJ; Julie C. Harper, MD, Birmingham, Ala.; and Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, of Georgia, all members of the work group that created the current American Academy of Dermatology guidelines.
Strong points of the current guidelines are the high-quality, evidence-based recommendations on initial treatment of facial acne. However, a major weakness of existing guidelines is reflected in the fact that well over 40% of patients relapse after acne therapy, and these relapses can significantly impair quality of life and productivity, said Dr. Layton, one of several PACE panelists who coauthored the current European Dermatology Forum acne guidelines.
The PACE panel utilized a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on their recommendations. Ten panelists rated current practice guidelines as “somewhat useful” for informing long-term management, two dermatologists deemed existing guidelines “not at all useful” in this regard, and one declined to answer the question.
“None of us felt the guidelines were very useful,” Dr. Layton noted.
It will take time, money, and research commitment to generate compelling data on best practices for long-term maintenance therapy for acne. Other areas in sore need of high-quality studies to improve the evidence-based care of acne include the appropriate length of antibiotic therapy for acne and how to effectively combine topical agents with oral antibiotics to support appropriate use of antimicrobials. In the meantime, the PACE group plans to issue interim practical consensus recommendations to beef up existing guidelines.
With regard to practical recommendations to improve patient-centered care, there was strong consensus among the panelists that acne management in certain patient subgroups requires special attention. These subgroups include patients with darker skin phototypes, heavy exercisers, transgender patients and patients with hormonal conditions, pregnant or breast-feeding women, patients with psychiatric issues, and children under age 10.
PACE panelists agreed that a physician-patient discussion about long-term treatment expectations is “paramount” to effective patient-centered management.
“To ensure a positive consultation experience, physicians should prioritize discussion of efficacy expectations, including timelines and treatment duration,” Dr. Layton continued.
Other key topics to address in promoting patient-centered management of acne include discussion of medication adverse effects and tolerability, application technique for topical treatments, the importance of adherence, and recommendations regarding a daily skin care routine, according to the PACE group.
Dr. Layton reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, which funded the PACE project, as well as half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Colonoscopy prep suggestions for those who hate it
A 61-year-old man is seen for a primary care visit. He has a history of colonic polyps (tubular adenoma) on two previous colonoscopies (at age 50 and 55). He has been on an appropriate 5-year schedule, but is overdue for his colonoscopy. He did not follow up with messages from his gastroenterologist for scheduling his colonoscopy last year. He explains he really hates the whole preparation for colonoscopy, but does realize he needs to follow up, and is willing to do so now. What do you recommend for colonoscopy prep? 
A) Diet as usual until 5 p.m. day before, then clear liquid diet. Start GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
B) Low-fiber diet X2 days, clear liquid diet day before procedure, GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
C) Low residue diet X3 days, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
D) Low residue diet X2 days, followed by clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
It is common for patients to be reluctant to follow recommendations for colonoscopy due to dreading the prep. I would recommend choice C here, as the least difficult bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Gastroenterologists are usually the ones to recommend the bowel prep that they want their patients to follow.
Major diet change for several days before colonoscopy is difficult for many patients. Standard advice is that patients eat only low-fiber foods starting 3 days before the procedure. Patients are advised to switch to a completely clear liquid diet 1-2 days before the colonoscopy.
Are there more tolerable diets to offer patients?
Soweid and colleagues randomized 200 patients to a low residue diet for the three meals the day before colonoscopy vs. clear liquid diet.1 The low residue diet allowed patients to eat meat, eggs, cheese, bread, rice, and ice cream. Not surprisingly, patients tolerated the low residue diet better with statistically significantly less nausea, vomiting, weakness, headache, sleep difficulties, and hunger. The patients in the low residue diet group also had better bowel prep than did those in the clear liquid diet group (81% vs. 52%, P less than 0.001).1
In a recent meta- analysis, low residue diets were comparable to clear liquid diets in regard to adequacy of bowel prep and for detection of polyps.2 Patients who followed low residue diets had statistically significantly less headaches, nausea, vomiting, and hunger. Very importantly, patients who followed low residue diets showed an increased willingness to repeat it, compared with those who followed a clear liquid diet (P less than .005; odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.89).2
What alternatives to GoLYTELY exist?
Another part of the bowel prep that patients struggle with is drinking a gallon of GoLYTELY (polyethylene glycol/electrolytes). Drinking that amount of this nasty stuff is never welcome.
There are a number of lower-volume alternatives that are as effective as GoLYTELY. Sarvepalli and colleagues did a retrospective study of 75,874 patients who had a colonoscopy in the Cleveland Clinic health system.3 The choice of bowel prep was not associated with adenoma detection.
Patients who lower volume preparations (2 quarts) SUPREP, MoviPrep, Osmoprep and HalfLytely had varying results of rates of inadequate bowel prep compared with patients who took GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking SUPREP and MoviPrep were statistically significantly better than for patients taking GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking OsmoPrep were not statistically different from those for patients taking GoLYTELY. Rates of inadequate bowel prep were statistically higher, meaning worse, for patients taking HalfLytely vs. patients taking GoLYTELY.3
Gu and colleagues did a prospective study of bowel prep outcomes from 4,339 colonoscopies, involving 75 different endoscopists.4 There was a wide range of bowel preps used, including low- and high-volume bowel preps. The low-volume preparations, SUPREP (P less than .001), MoviPrep (P less than .004) and MiraLAX with Gatorade (P less than .001), were superior to GoLYTELY for bowel cleansing. This was based on scoring via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. All were better tolerated than GoLYTELY.
Myth: All patients need a clear liquid diet and GoLYTELY for their bowel prep.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Soweid AM et al. A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy 2010;42:633-8.
2. Zhang X et al. Low-[residue] diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):508-18.
3. Sarvepalli S et al. Comparative effectiveness of commercial bowel preparations in ambulatory patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06492-z.
4. Gu P et al. Comparing the real-world effectiveness of competing colonoscopy preparations: results of a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(2):305-14.
A 61-year-old man is seen for a primary care visit. He has a history of colonic polyps (tubular adenoma) on two previous colonoscopies (at age 50 and 55). He has been on an appropriate 5-year schedule, but is overdue for his colonoscopy. He did not follow up with messages from his gastroenterologist for scheduling his colonoscopy last year. He explains he really hates the whole preparation for colonoscopy, but does realize he needs to follow up, and is willing to do so now. What do you recommend for colonoscopy prep?
A) Diet as usual until 5 p.m. day before, then clear liquid diet. Start GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
B) Low-fiber diet X2 days, clear liquid diet day before procedure, GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
C) Low residue diet X3 days, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
D) Low residue diet X2 days, followed by clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
It is common for patients to be reluctant to follow recommendations for colonoscopy due to dreading the prep. I would recommend choice C here, as the least difficult bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Gastroenterologists are usually the ones to recommend the bowel prep that they want their patients to follow.
Major diet change for several days before colonoscopy is difficult for many patients. Standard advice is that patients eat only low-fiber foods starting 3 days before the procedure. Patients are advised to switch to a completely clear liquid diet 1-2 days before the colonoscopy.
Are there more tolerable diets to offer patients?
Soweid and colleagues randomized 200 patients to a low residue diet for the three meals the day before colonoscopy vs. clear liquid diet.1 The low residue diet allowed patients to eat meat, eggs, cheese, bread, rice, and ice cream. Not surprisingly, patients tolerated the low residue diet better with statistically significantly less nausea, vomiting, weakness, headache, sleep difficulties, and hunger. The patients in the low residue diet group also had better bowel prep than did those in the clear liquid diet group (81% vs. 52%, P less than 0.001).1
In a recent meta- analysis, low residue diets were comparable to clear liquid diets in regard to adequacy of bowel prep and for detection of polyps.2 Patients who followed low residue diets had statistically significantly less headaches, nausea, vomiting, and hunger. Very importantly, patients who followed low residue diets showed an increased willingness to repeat it, compared with those who followed a clear liquid diet (P less than .005; odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.89).2
What alternatives to GoLYTELY exist?
Another part of the bowel prep that patients struggle with is drinking a gallon of GoLYTELY (polyethylene glycol/electrolytes). Drinking that amount of this nasty stuff is never welcome.
There are a number of lower-volume alternatives that are as effective as GoLYTELY. Sarvepalli and colleagues did a retrospective study of 75,874 patients who had a colonoscopy in the Cleveland Clinic health system.3 The choice of bowel prep was not associated with adenoma detection.
Patients who lower volume preparations (2 quarts) SUPREP, MoviPrep, Osmoprep and HalfLytely had varying results of rates of inadequate bowel prep compared with patients who took GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking SUPREP and MoviPrep were statistically significantly better than for patients taking GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking OsmoPrep were not statistically different from those for patients taking GoLYTELY. Rates of inadequate bowel prep were statistically higher, meaning worse, for patients taking HalfLytely vs. patients taking GoLYTELY.3
Gu and colleagues did a prospective study of bowel prep outcomes from 4,339 colonoscopies, involving 75 different endoscopists.4 There was a wide range of bowel preps used, including low- and high-volume bowel preps. The low-volume preparations, SUPREP (P less than .001), MoviPrep (P less than .004) and MiraLAX with Gatorade (P less than .001), were superior to GoLYTELY for bowel cleansing. This was based on scoring via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. All were better tolerated than GoLYTELY.
Myth: All patients need a clear liquid diet and GoLYTELY for their bowel prep.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Soweid AM et al. A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy 2010;42:633-8.
2. Zhang X et al. Low-[residue] diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):508-18.
3. Sarvepalli S et al. Comparative effectiveness of commercial bowel preparations in ambulatory patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06492-z.
4. Gu P et al. Comparing the real-world effectiveness of competing colonoscopy preparations: results of a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(2):305-14.
A 61-year-old man is seen for a primary care visit. He has a history of colonic polyps (tubular adenoma) on two previous colonoscopies (at age 50 and 55). He has been on an appropriate 5-year schedule, but is overdue for his colonoscopy. He did not follow up with messages from his gastroenterologist for scheduling his colonoscopy last year. He explains he really hates the whole preparation for colonoscopy, but does realize he needs to follow up, and is willing to do so now. What do you recommend for colonoscopy prep?
A) Diet as usual until 5 p.m. day before, then clear liquid diet. Start GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
B) Low-fiber diet X2 days, clear liquid diet day before procedure, GoLYTELY (1 gallon) night before procedure.
C) Low residue diet X3 days, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
D) Low residue diet X2 days, followed by clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, SUPREP the night before the procedure.
It is common for patients to be reluctant to follow recommendations for colonoscopy due to dreading the prep. I would recommend choice C here, as the least difficult bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Gastroenterologists are usually the ones to recommend the bowel prep that they want their patients to follow.
Major diet change for several days before colonoscopy is difficult for many patients. Standard advice is that patients eat only low-fiber foods starting 3 days before the procedure. Patients are advised to switch to a completely clear liquid diet 1-2 days before the colonoscopy.
Are there more tolerable diets to offer patients?
Soweid and colleagues randomized 200 patients to a low residue diet for the three meals the day before colonoscopy vs. clear liquid diet.1 The low residue diet allowed patients to eat meat, eggs, cheese, bread, rice, and ice cream. Not surprisingly, patients tolerated the low residue diet better with statistically significantly less nausea, vomiting, weakness, headache, sleep difficulties, and hunger. The patients in the low residue diet group also had better bowel prep than did those in the clear liquid diet group (81% vs. 52%, P less than 0.001).1
In a recent meta- analysis, low residue diets were comparable to clear liquid diets in regard to adequacy of bowel prep and for detection of polyps.2 Patients who followed low residue diets had statistically significantly less headaches, nausea, vomiting, and hunger. Very importantly, patients who followed low residue diets showed an increased willingness to repeat it, compared with those who followed a clear liquid diet (P less than .005; odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.89).2
What alternatives to GoLYTELY exist?
Another part of the bowel prep that patients struggle with is drinking a gallon of GoLYTELY (polyethylene glycol/electrolytes). Drinking that amount of this nasty stuff is never welcome.
There are a number of lower-volume alternatives that are as effective as GoLYTELY. Sarvepalli and colleagues did a retrospective study of 75,874 patients who had a colonoscopy in the Cleveland Clinic health system.3 The choice of bowel prep was not associated with adenoma detection.
Patients who lower volume preparations (2 quarts) SUPREP, MoviPrep, Osmoprep and HalfLytely had varying results of rates of inadequate bowel prep compared with patients who took GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking SUPREP and MoviPrep were statistically significantly better than for patients taking GoLYTELY. Results for patients taking OsmoPrep were not statistically different from those for patients taking GoLYTELY. Rates of inadequate bowel prep were statistically higher, meaning worse, for patients taking HalfLytely vs. patients taking GoLYTELY.3
Gu and colleagues did a prospective study of bowel prep outcomes from 4,339 colonoscopies, involving 75 different endoscopists.4 There was a wide range of bowel preps used, including low- and high-volume bowel preps. The low-volume preparations, SUPREP (P less than .001), MoviPrep (P less than .004) and MiraLAX with Gatorade (P less than .001), were superior to GoLYTELY for bowel cleansing. This was based on scoring via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. All were better tolerated than GoLYTELY.
Myth: All patients need a clear liquid diet and GoLYTELY for their bowel prep.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Soweid AM et al. A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy 2010;42:633-8.
2. Zhang X et al. Low-[residue] diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):508-18.
3. Sarvepalli S et al. Comparative effectiveness of commercial bowel preparations in ambulatory patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06492-z.
4. Gu P et al. Comparing the real-world effectiveness of competing colonoscopy preparations: results of a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114(2):305-14.
National spike in methamphetamine overdose deaths
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The national rate of methamphetamine overdose deaths shot up significantly between 2011 and 2018, particularly among non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native communities, new research shows.
Rates rose for both men and women but more so among men, the study found. The spike in these deaths underscores the need for culturally tailored prevention and treatment strategies, the study authors said.
“While much attention is focused on the opioid crisis, a methamphetamine crisis has been quietly, but actively, gaining steam – particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives, who are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions,” senior investigator Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release.
The study was published online Jan. 20 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Highly toxic
Methamphetamine is highly toxic. Its use is associated with pulmonary and cardiovascular pathology and frequently co-occurs with other substance use and mental disorders.
In addition, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications to reverse methamphetamine overdose or treat methamphetamine use disorder.
However, In addition, a recent clinical trial reported significant therapeutic benefits with the combination of naltrexone with bupropion in patients with methamphetamine use disorder.
For the study, the investigators used deidentified public health surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System files for multiple causes of death.
The researchers used the psychostimulant category to estimate death rates from methamphetamine. The authors noted that up to 90% of psychostimulant-involved death certificates mentioned methamphetamine.
Researchers stratified age-adjusted overdose death rates during 2011-2018 by sex and race/ethnicity and limited the analysis to those aged 25-54 years. Approximately 80% of methamphetamine users are between the ages of 25 and 54 years.
During the study period, rates for methamphetamine-involved deaths increased from 1.8 to 10.1 per 100,000 among men (average annual percentage change, 29.1; 95% confidence interval, 25.5-32.8; P < .001) and from 0.8 to 4.5 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 28.1; 95% CI, 25.1-31.2; P < .001).
Need for tailored interventions
For both men and women, those in non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native communities had the highest rates. These increased from 5.6 to 26.4 per 100,000 among men and from 3.6 to 15.6 per 100,000 among women.
While American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experience sociostructural disadvantages, their cultural strengths “can be leveraged to improve addiction outcomes,” the investigators wrote.
Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest rates. These rose from 2.2 to 12.6 per 100,000 among men (AAPC, 29.8; 95% CI, 24.3-35.4; P < .001) and from 1.1 to 6.2 per 100,000 among women (AAPC, 29.1; 95% CI, 25.2-33.2; P < .001).
Rates among Hispanic individuals increased from 1.4 to 6.6 per 100,000 for men and from 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 for women. Among non-Hispanic Asian individuals, rates increased to 3.4 per 100,000 for men and to 1.1 per 100,000 for women. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had low rates. Within each racial/ethnic group, rates were higher among men versus women.
Methamphetamine death rates may be underestimated because some overdose death certificates do not report specific drugs involved, the authors noted.
Identifying populations that have a higher rate of methamphetamine overdose is a crucial step toward curbing the underlying methamphetamine crisis,” study author Beth Han, MD, PhD, of NIDA, said in a press release.
“By focusing on the unique needs of individuals and developing culturally tailored interventions, we can begin to move away from one-size-fits-all approaches and toward more effective, tailored interventions,” she said.
The study was sponsored by NIDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biggest challenges practices faced from COVID last year: MGMA
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung cancer screening during pandemic: Paused, then rebounded across patient subgroups
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.
The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.
“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.
Dr. Begnaud said that the findings were similar to what she has seen at her own institution. Although the rebound in screening was good to see, it nevertheless suggests that screening is still lagging. “During the ramp-up period, they got back to nearly prepandemic levels, but you might have liked to see that the numbers were even higher. In theory, if you had several months of people who should have been getting screened who didn’t, if they were all getting caught up, you might have seen higher numbers after that,” said Dr. Begnaud.
The current winter surge in cases is likely to have long-lasting impact on lung cancer screening as well. Although she hasn’t seen a similar decline yet, Dr. Begnaud expects it’s coming. “I think we’ll see a major decline even throughout this year in screening until we are squarely out of the pandemic.” Things could be particularly challenging for resource-poor settings. “If physical resources (CT scanners) and human resources (techs, radiologists, primary care providers) are overworked, they may not have the bandwidth for ‘elective’ and preventive care,” said Dr. Begnaud.
Two previous studies looked at changes in lung cancer screening after the onset of the pandemic, but neither examined patient characteristics or risk factors. The current study included 3,688 screening exams (52.3% first-time exams), and divided them up into the pre-COVID-19 era (Jan. 1 to March 2, 2019), the beginning of the pandemic (March 3 to March 29, 2020), the shutdown period (March 30 to May 21, 2020) and the ramp-up period (May 22 to Sept. 30, 2020).
The largest reduction of screening volume occurred during the beginning of the pandemic, at –33.6% (95% confidence interval, –11.9% to –55.3%). By June, the reduction in volume was –9.1%, compared with pre-COVID-19 levels (95% CI, –4.7% to –23.0%). In the period between June and September 2020, the overall rate was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels (–15.3% change; 95% CI, –7.8% to 38.4%).
The researchers found no differences in screening changes among patient groups based on age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index, COPD status, hypertension, or patient residence. The proportion of exams that were first-time screens was highest before the pandemic (53.8%), and declined at the beginning of the pandemic (50.7%), during shutdown (49.7%), and during the ramp-up period (48.6%). The difference between the prepandemic and ramp-up period in terms of first-time screens was statistically significant (P = .0072).
The investigators offered a couple of caveats: “Our results do not demonstrate differences in LCS volumes pre- versus during COVID among non-White patients or rural patients, both of which have persistently experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes and other cancer screening modalities. Additionally, our results do not suggest that patients at high risk of COVID complications (i.e., patients who are obese, have COPD or hypertension) were less likely to undergo LCS.” The study demonstrated, rather, that a similar impact of the COVID-19 crisis on lung cancer screening was felt across all patient subgroups.
The study was funded by The National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rivera served as an advisory board member for Biodesix and bioAffinity Technologies, and served on an advisory research panel for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM CHEST
ACEIs, ARBs safe to continue in COVID-19: Trial published
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The BRACE-CORONA trial, the first randomized trial to address the question of whether patients with COVID-19 should continue to take ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) – has now been published.
The study, which was conducted in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospitalization, showed no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue versus those assigned to continue these medications.
There were, however, hints that continuing to take ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial for patients with more severe COVID-19.
The study was first presented at last year’s European Society of Cardiology Congress and was reported by this news organization at that time. The study was published online in JAMA on Jan. 19, 2021.
“These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment,” the authors concluded.
Led by Renato D. Lopes, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., the researchers explained that there has been conflicting speculation about the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the course of COVID-19.
On the one hand, observations from animal models suggest that ACEIs and ARBs up-regulate the expression of ACE2, a receptor involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection of host target cells. This led to suggestions that these medications may enhance viral binding and cell entry. Conversely, RAAS inhibitors could benefit patients with COVID-19 through effects on angiotensin II expression and subsequent increases in angiotensin 1-7 and 1-9, which have vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects that might attenuate lung injury.
The BRACE-CORONA trial included 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization. The median age of the patients was 55 years. Of these patients, 57.1% were considered to have mild cases at hospital admission, and 42.9% were considered to have moderate cases.
Results showed no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital for patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days) in comparison with patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days). The mean ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.01).
There also was no statistically significant difference in deaths (2.7% of the discontinuation group vs. 2.8% for the continuation group); cardiovascular death (0.6% vs. 0.3%), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs. 32.3%).
The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs. 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs. 7.1%), acute MI (7.5% vs. 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs. 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs. 2.8%).
The authors note that hypertension is an important comorbidity in patients with COVID-19. Recent data suggest that immune dysfunction may contribute to poor outcomes among patients who have COVID-19 and hypertension.
It has been shown that, when use of long-term medications is discontinued during hospitalization, the use of those medications is often not resumed, owing to clinical inertia. Long-term outcomes worsen as a result, the authors reported. In the current study, all patients had hypertension, and more than 50% were obese; both of these comorbidities increase the risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19.
The investigators pointed out that a sensitivity analysis in which site was regarded as a random effect showed a statistically significant finding in favor of the group that continued ACEIs or ARBs. This finding was similar to that of the on-treatment analysis. There were also statistically significant interactions between treatment effect and some subgroups, such as patients with lower oxygen saturation and greater disease severity at hospital admission. For these patients, continuing ACEIs or ARBs may be beneficial.
“The primary analyses with the null results but wide 95% confidence intervals suggest that the study might have been underpowered to detect a statistically significant benefit of continuing ACEIs or ARBs,” they said.
Dr. Lopes has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Widespread liver disease missed in patients with T2D
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
President Biden signs 10 new orders to help fight COVID-19
“For the past year, we couldn’t rely on the federal government to act with the urgency and focus and coordination we needed, and we have seen the tragic cost of that failure,” Mr. Biden said in remarks from the White House, unveiling his 198-page National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness.
He said as many as 500,000 Americans will have died by February. “It’s going to take months for us to turn things around,” he said.
“Our national strategy is comprehensive – it’s based on science, not politics; it’s based on truth, not denial,” Mr. Biden said. He also promised to restore public trust, in part by having scientists and public health experts speak to the public. “That’s why you’ll be hearing a lot more from Dr. Fauci again, not from the president,” he said, adding that the experts will be “free from political interference.”
While the president’s executive orders can help accomplish some of the plan’s proposals, the majority will require new funding from Congress and will be included in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue package that Mr. Biden hopes legislators will approve.
Ten new orders
The 10 new pandemic-related orders Biden signed on Jan. 21 follow two he signed on his first day in office.
One establishes a COVID-19 Response Office responsible for coordinating the pandemic response across all federal departments and agencies and also reestablishes the White House Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was disabled by the Trump administration.
The other order requires masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
Among the new orders will be directives that:
- Require individuals to also wear masks in airports and planes, and when using other modes of public transportation including trains, boats, and intercity buses, and also require international travelers to produce proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test prior to entry and to quarantine after entry.
- Federal agencies use all powers, including the Defense Production Act, to accelerate manufacturing and delivery of supplies such as N95 masks, gowns, gloves, swabs, reagents, pipette tips, rapid test kits, and nitrocellulose material for rapid antigen tests, and all equipment and material needed to accelerate manufacture, delivery, and administration of COVID-19 vaccine.
- Create a Pandemic Testing Board to expand supply and access, to promote more surge capacity, and to ensure equitable access to tests.
- Facilitate discovery, development, and trials of potential COVID-19 treatments, as well as expand access to programs that can meet the long-term health needs of those recovering from the disease.
- Facilitate more and better data sharing that will allow businesses, schools, hospitals, and individuals to make real-time decisions based on spread in their community.
- Direct the Education and Health & Human Services departments to provide schools and child-care operations guidance on how to reopen and operate safely.
- Direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to immediately release clear guidance for employers to help keep workers safe and to enforce health and safety requirements.
The plan also sets goals for vaccination – including 100 million shots in the administration’s first 100 days. President Biden had already previewed his goals for vaccination, including setting up mass vaccination sites and mobile vaccination sites. During his remarks, Mr. Biden said that he had already directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to begin setting up the vaccination centers.
The administration is also going to look into improving reimbursement for giving vaccines. As a start, the HHS will ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to consider if a higher rate “may more accurately compensate providers,” according to the Biden plan.
“But the brutal truth is it will take months before we can get the majority of Americans vaccinated,” said Mr. Biden.
As part of the goal of ensuring an equitable pandemic response, the president will sign an order that establishes a COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force. The task force is charged with providing recommendations for allocating resources and funding in communities with inequities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, geography, disability, and other considerations.
Finally, the administration has committed to being more transparent and sharing more information. The national plan calls for the federal government to conduct regular, expert-led, science-based public briefings and to release regular reports on the pandemic. The administration said it will launch massive science-based public information campaigns – in multiple languages – to educate Americans on masks, testing, and vaccines, and also work to counter misinformation and disinformation.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) applauded Mr. Biden’s initiative. “If enacted, this bold legislative agenda will provide much-needed support to American families struggling during the pandemic – especially communities of color and those hardest hit by the virus,” Ada D. Stewart, MD, AAFP president, said in a statement.
Dr. Stewart also noted that family physicians “are uniquely positioned in their communities to educate patients, prioritize access, and coordinate administration of the COVID-19 vaccines,” and urged the administration to ensure that family physicians and staff be vaccinated as soon as possible, to help them “more safely provide care to their communities.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For the past year, we couldn’t rely on the federal government to act with the urgency and focus and coordination we needed, and we have seen the tragic cost of that failure,” Mr. Biden said in remarks from the White House, unveiling his 198-page National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness.
He said as many as 500,000 Americans will have died by February. “It’s going to take months for us to turn things around,” he said.
“Our national strategy is comprehensive – it’s based on science, not politics; it’s based on truth, not denial,” Mr. Biden said. He also promised to restore public trust, in part by having scientists and public health experts speak to the public. “That’s why you’ll be hearing a lot more from Dr. Fauci again, not from the president,” he said, adding that the experts will be “free from political interference.”
While the president’s executive orders can help accomplish some of the plan’s proposals, the majority will require new funding from Congress and will be included in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue package that Mr. Biden hopes legislators will approve.
Ten new orders
The 10 new pandemic-related orders Biden signed on Jan. 21 follow two he signed on his first day in office.
One establishes a COVID-19 Response Office responsible for coordinating the pandemic response across all federal departments and agencies and also reestablishes the White House Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was disabled by the Trump administration.
The other order requires masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
Among the new orders will be directives that:
- Require individuals to also wear masks in airports and planes, and when using other modes of public transportation including trains, boats, and intercity buses, and also require international travelers to produce proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test prior to entry and to quarantine after entry.
- Federal agencies use all powers, including the Defense Production Act, to accelerate manufacturing and delivery of supplies such as N95 masks, gowns, gloves, swabs, reagents, pipette tips, rapid test kits, and nitrocellulose material for rapid antigen tests, and all equipment and material needed to accelerate manufacture, delivery, and administration of COVID-19 vaccine.
- Create a Pandemic Testing Board to expand supply and access, to promote more surge capacity, and to ensure equitable access to tests.
- Facilitate discovery, development, and trials of potential COVID-19 treatments, as well as expand access to programs that can meet the long-term health needs of those recovering from the disease.
- Facilitate more and better data sharing that will allow businesses, schools, hospitals, and individuals to make real-time decisions based on spread in their community.
- Direct the Education and Health & Human Services departments to provide schools and child-care operations guidance on how to reopen and operate safely.
- Direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to immediately release clear guidance for employers to help keep workers safe and to enforce health and safety requirements.
The plan also sets goals for vaccination – including 100 million shots in the administration’s first 100 days. President Biden had already previewed his goals for vaccination, including setting up mass vaccination sites and mobile vaccination sites. During his remarks, Mr. Biden said that he had already directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to begin setting up the vaccination centers.
The administration is also going to look into improving reimbursement for giving vaccines. As a start, the HHS will ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to consider if a higher rate “may more accurately compensate providers,” according to the Biden plan.
“But the brutal truth is it will take months before we can get the majority of Americans vaccinated,” said Mr. Biden.
As part of the goal of ensuring an equitable pandemic response, the president will sign an order that establishes a COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force. The task force is charged with providing recommendations for allocating resources and funding in communities with inequities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, geography, disability, and other considerations.
Finally, the administration has committed to being more transparent and sharing more information. The national plan calls for the federal government to conduct regular, expert-led, science-based public briefings and to release regular reports on the pandemic. The administration said it will launch massive science-based public information campaigns – in multiple languages – to educate Americans on masks, testing, and vaccines, and also work to counter misinformation and disinformation.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) applauded Mr. Biden’s initiative. “If enacted, this bold legislative agenda will provide much-needed support to American families struggling during the pandemic – especially communities of color and those hardest hit by the virus,” Ada D. Stewart, MD, AAFP president, said in a statement.
Dr. Stewart also noted that family physicians “are uniquely positioned in their communities to educate patients, prioritize access, and coordinate administration of the COVID-19 vaccines,” and urged the administration to ensure that family physicians and staff be vaccinated as soon as possible, to help them “more safely provide care to their communities.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For the past year, we couldn’t rely on the federal government to act with the urgency and focus and coordination we needed, and we have seen the tragic cost of that failure,” Mr. Biden said in remarks from the White House, unveiling his 198-page National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness.
He said as many as 500,000 Americans will have died by February. “It’s going to take months for us to turn things around,” he said.
“Our national strategy is comprehensive – it’s based on science, not politics; it’s based on truth, not denial,” Mr. Biden said. He also promised to restore public trust, in part by having scientists and public health experts speak to the public. “That’s why you’ll be hearing a lot more from Dr. Fauci again, not from the president,” he said, adding that the experts will be “free from political interference.”
While the president’s executive orders can help accomplish some of the plan’s proposals, the majority will require new funding from Congress and will be included in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue package that Mr. Biden hopes legislators will approve.
Ten new orders
The 10 new pandemic-related orders Biden signed on Jan. 21 follow two he signed on his first day in office.
One establishes a COVID-19 Response Office responsible for coordinating the pandemic response across all federal departments and agencies and also reestablishes the White House Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was disabled by the Trump administration.
The other order requires masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
Among the new orders will be directives that:
- Require individuals to also wear masks in airports and planes, and when using other modes of public transportation including trains, boats, and intercity buses, and also require international travelers to produce proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test prior to entry and to quarantine after entry.
- Federal agencies use all powers, including the Defense Production Act, to accelerate manufacturing and delivery of supplies such as N95 masks, gowns, gloves, swabs, reagents, pipette tips, rapid test kits, and nitrocellulose material for rapid antigen tests, and all equipment and material needed to accelerate manufacture, delivery, and administration of COVID-19 vaccine.
- Create a Pandemic Testing Board to expand supply and access, to promote more surge capacity, and to ensure equitable access to tests.
- Facilitate discovery, development, and trials of potential COVID-19 treatments, as well as expand access to programs that can meet the long-term health needs of those recovering from the disease.
- Facilitate more and better data sharing that will allow businesses, schools, hospitals, and individuals to make real-time decisions based on spread in their community.
- Direct the Education and Health & Human Services departments to provide schools and child-care operations guidance on how to reopen and operate safely.
- Direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to immediately release clear guidance for employers to help keep workers safe and to enforce health and safety requirements.
The plan also sets goals for vaccination – including 100 million shots in the administration’s first 100 days. President Biden had already previewed his goals for vaccination, including setting up mass vaccination sites and mobile vaccination sites. During his remarks, Mr. Biden said that he had already directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to begin setting up the vaccination centers.
The administration is also going to look into improving reimbursement for giving vaccines. As a start, the HHS will ask the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to consider if a higher rate “may more accurately compensate providers,” according to the Biden plan.
“But the brutal truth is it will take months before we can get the majority of Americans vaccinated,” said Mr. Biden.
As part of the goal of ensuring an equitable pandemic response, the president will sign an order that establishes a COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force. The task force is charged with providing recommendations for allocating resources and funding in communities with inequities in COVID-19 outcomes by race, ethnicity, geography, disability, and other considerations.
Finally, the administration has committed to being more transparent and sharing more information. The national plan calls for the federal government to conduct regular, expert-led, science-based public briefings and to release regular reports on the pandemic. The administration said it will launch massive science-based public information campaigns – in multiple languages – to educate Americans on masks, testing, and vaccines, and also work to counter misinformation and disinformation.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) applauded Mr. Biden’s initiative. “If enacted, this bold legislative agenda will provide much-needed support to American families struggling during the pandemic – especially communities of color and those hardest hit by the virus,” Ada D. Stewart, MD, AAFP president, said in a statement.
Dr. Stewart also noted that family physicians “are uniquely positioned in their communities to educate patients, prioritize access, and coordinate administration of the COVID-19 vaccines,” and urged the administration to ensure that family physicians and staff be vaccinated as soon as possible, to help them “more safely provide care to their communities.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Metformin treatment again linked to fewer deaths from COVID-19
People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.
“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.
But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.
“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.
“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
Diverse population
The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.
Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.
Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).
The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.
Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
Similar findings reported across varied populations
The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.
Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.
“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.
“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects
While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.
They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.
“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.
Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.
“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”
“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.
Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.
“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.
“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.
But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.
“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.
“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
Diverse population
The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.
Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.
Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).
The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.
Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
Similar findings reported across varied populations
The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.
Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.
“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.
“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects
While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.
They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.
“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.
Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.
“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”
“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.
Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.
“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.
“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.
But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.
“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.
“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
Diverse population
The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.
Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.
Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).
The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.
Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
Similar findings reported across varied populations
The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.
Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.
“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.
“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects
While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.
They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.
“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.
Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.
“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”
“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.
Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.
“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Seven ways President Biden could now change health care
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.