Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Determining whether patients are fatigued or experiencing sleepiness is an important criterion when diagnosing hypersomnia, according to Ruth M. Benca, MD, PhD.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

Treatments for hypersomnia

The first priority for patients with hypersomnia is to avoid sleep deprivation and practice good sleep hygiene – factors that are important both in insomnia and hypersomnia. “Make sure that patients are having adequate time in bed and having regular hours of sleep,” Dr. Benca said.

For patients with comorbid psychiatric, medical and sleep disorders, focus on getting rid of medications that may cause sleepiness, including sedating medications and antidepressants, and consider using stimulants if appropriate. While there are Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for narcolepsy and some are approved for hypersomnia in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), none are officially approved to treat hypersomnia in psychiatric patients.

“Whenever we use these drugs for those reasons, we’re using them off label,” Dr. Benca said.

Modafinil/armodafinil, approved for narcolepsy, shift-work disorder, and OSA in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, is one off-label option for patients with hypersomnia. “They are lower potency and less addictive than the amphetamines, [with] fewer side effects,” Dr. Benca explained, but should be prescribed with caution in some women because of potential reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives. Side effects of modafinil include headache, nausea, eosinophilia, diarrhea, dry mouth, and anorexia.

Methylphenidate is another option for hypersomnia, available in racemic mixture, pure D-isomer, and time-release formulations.

Patients taking methylphenidate may experience nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, hypertension, hypotension, hypersensitivity reactions, tachycardia, and headache as side effects.

For patients with central nervous system hypersomnias, amphetamines can be used, with methamphetamines having a “very similar profile” and similar side effects, including insomnia, restlessness, tachycardia, dizziness, diarrhea, constipation, hypertension, impotence, and rare cases of psychotic episodes.

Practice parameters released by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine in 2007 suggest that modafinil may have efficacy in idiopathic hypersomnia, Parkinson’s disease, myotonic dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis. The practice parameters also suggest hypersomnias of central origin can be treated with modafinil, amphetamine, methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and methylphenidate based on evidence or “long history of use” (Sleep. 2007;30:1705-11).

“Interestingly, there is no mention of psychiatric disorders in these practice parameters, and they report that there are mixed results using stimulants off label for sleepiness and fatigue in traumatic brain injury and poststroke fatigue,” Dr. Benca said.

Dr. Benca reported that she is a consultant to Eisai, Idorsia, Jazz, Merck, and Sunovion. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Joe Biden’s victory sets the stage for health care to become a high-profile priority of his presidency.

The former vice president has sketched out a big health agenda: ramping up the federal response to COVID-19, boosting the Affordable Care Act, creating a new “public option” to cover uninsured Americans, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

But the president-elect’s long to-do list on health is likely to face significant roadblocks in Congress and the courts, experts say.

For instance, Biden’s ambitious proposals on COVID-19 -- including his recent call for a national mask mandate -- could be waylaid by legal challenges and run into political hurdles on Capitol Hill, where he may face a divided Congress.

Joseph Antos, PhD, a health policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, predicts Biden will encounter the same type of congressional “gridlock situation” that President Barack Obama ran into during his second term.

“We have a situation that has been like this for a very, very long time -- lack of cooperation, lack of recognition that either party is capable of rising above their own electoral views to deal with problems that the country actually has.”

Antos also suggests that Biden may also face enormous political pressure to address the economic fallout from the coronavirus, including record unemployment and business closures, before anything else.

“I think it’s really going to be efforts that are intended to promote economic development and promote the economy,” he says.

In addition, Biden’s plans to expand Obamacare might face a new challenge from the Supreme Court in the year ahead. This month, the high court will take up a new case seeking to overturn the law.

Even so, experts say Biden’s plans on COVID-19 and expanding health care are likely to define his tenure in the White House as a central focus of his presidency.

“Health care will be at the very top of the list of the president’s priorities,” says Sabrina Corlette, JD, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. “I do think, however, that the administration is going to be very preoccupied with the response to COVID-19 and the economic fallout … particularly in the first year.”

Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from a Biden presidency.

COVID-19: Federalizing response efforts

Biden will move to federalize the response to COVID-19. He has said he will take back major responsibilities from the states -- such as setting national policies on mask wearing, social distancing, and the reopening of schools and businesses, based on CDC guidance. In the days leading up to the election, Biden called for a national mask mandate, after waffling on the issue throughout the summer.

He has said he will let public health science drive political policy. Biden is also planning to create his own task force to advise officials during the transition on managing the new surge in COVID-19 cases, vaccine safety and protecting at-risk populations, Politico reported this week. He received a virtual briefing on the pandemic from a panel of experts as he awaited the election’s outcome.

“I think we will no longer have this confused and contradictory public messaging,” Corlette says, “but I also think there will be humility and the recognition that the evidence is evolving -- that we don’t have all the answers, but we’re learning as we go.”

But national mandates on masks and social distancing will be challenging to enforce, experts say. They are also likely to face pushback from business interests, opposition from public officials in GOP-led states, and even legal challenges.

• Providing free COVID-19 testing for all Americans
• Hiring 100,000 contact tracers
• Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for coronavirus treatment
• Delivering “sufficient” PPE for essential workers
• Supporting science-backed vaccines and medical treatments being developed
• Requiring the reopening of businesses, workplaces, and schools only after “sufficient” reductions in community transmission -- under evidence-based protocols put forward by the CDC
• Giving emergency paid leave for workers dislocated by the pandemic and more financial aid for workers, families, and small businesses
• Shoring up safeguards to protect at-risk Americans, including older people
• Boosting pay for health care workers on the front lines

Biden has not detailed how he would pay for many of these, beyond promising to force wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” of taxes to help. He has proposed a tax increase on Americans making more than $400,000 a year, which would require congressional approval.

Antos says he expects Biden’s proposed COVID-19 action plan to be virtually the same as Trump’s in two areas: efforts to develop a vaccine and antiviral treatments.

The administration has spent some $225 million on COVID-19 testing efforts, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Trump launched Operation Warp Speed to fast-track a vaccine. As part of that, the federal government has contracted with six drug companies, spending nearly $11 billion. The operation aims to provide at least 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021.

Antos would like to see “a more sophisticated approach to social distancing” from the president-elect that takes into account the different challenges facing Americans depending on their income, work situation, and other factors during the pandemic.

“There are a lot of people in this country where working from home is fine and their jobs are secure,” he notes. “It’s the person who used to work at a restaurant that closed, it’s the line worker at a factory that has severely cut back its hours. It’s basically lower-middle-class people, low-income people, middle-class people, and it’s not the elite.

“And the policies have not given enough consideration to the fact that their circumstances and their tradeoffs would differ from the tradeoffs of somebody who doesn’t have anything to worry about economically.

“So, what we need is a more supple policy [that] will give people the information they need and give them the financial support that they also need … so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families. And we basically haven’t done that.”

Obamacare on the blocks?

The Supreme Court’s decision to take up another case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act could hand Biden’s health agenda a major setback -- and put the medical care for millions of Americans in jeopardy.

On Nov. 10, the high court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit that would strike down all of Obamacare. A decision is not expected until next year.

The court has previously upheld the 2010 law, which Biden helped usher through Congress as vice president. But the addition of right-leaning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench last month gives the court a clear conservative majority that could mean the end of Obamacare, legal experts say.

Republicans have opposed the law since its passage, but they have been unable to muster the votes to repeal it, or to pass an alternative

Antos, from the American Enterprise Institute, notes conservatives believe the law has increased costs for health care and insurance over the past decade, in part because of its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions and requiring insurers to provide comprehensive “gold-plated” policies.

“It’s driven up costs, offers plans that are not very strong, put high-risk folks into the same [insurance pool], which has increased costs for everyone, the employer mandate … these are all the reasons,” he says.

The Supreme Court isn’t expected to deliver a decision on the Affordable Care Act before the middle of next year. But the uncertainty will likely push back Biden’s proposals to expand on the law.

• As many as 133 million Americans -- roughly half the U.S. population -- with preexisting conditions could find it harder, if not impossible, to find affordable health insurance. That figure does not include Americans infected with COVID-19.
• About 165 million who require expensive treatments -- for cancer and other conditions -- would no longer be protected from huge costs for care by federal caps on out-of-pocket expenditures the Affordable Care Act requires.
• An estimated 21 million who now buy insurance through the Obamacare Marketplaces could lose their coverage.
• Another 12 million on Medicaid could find themselves without insurance.
• At least 2 million young adults ages 26 and under, now on their parents’ health policies, could be kicked off.
• Millions of people who use Medicare could face higher costs.
• Federal subsidies for lower-income Americans to buy policies would disappear.

Throughout the campaign, Biden repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the law’s provision barring insurance companies from refusing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. It also outlaws charging higher premiums on the basis of health status, age, or gender.

Biden has also pledged to bolster the law as president.

He has proposed a variety of add-ons to the Affordable Care Act he says will “insure more than an estimated 97% of Americans,” according to the Biden campaign site.

Biden’s proposals include offering larger federal subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans pay for policies purchased through Obamacare insurance Marketplaces.

The boldest of Biden’s proposals is the creation of a “public option” for insurance -- a Medicare-like program that small businesses and individuals could choose if they do not have coverage, cannot afford it, or don’t like their employer-based coverage.

It would also automatically enroll millions of uninsured Americans living in the 14 states that have not expanded Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

But such a plan would require congressional approval -- including a “super majority” of 60 Senate votes to block a likely GOP filibuster. That will be a significant challenge Biden will have to overcome, with Congress so evenly divided.

The White House would also have to defeat heavy lobbying from some of the most influential industry interest groups in Washington, Corlette says.

“I’m not even confident they would get all the Democrat votes,” she says.

“So, it’s a going to be an uphill battle to get a public option passed.”

Taken together, Biden’s plans for expanding Obamacare are projected to cost $750 billion over 10 years. He has said much of that financing would come from increasing taxes on the wealthy.

That means it would likely require congressional approval, which Antos suggests is unlikely given the polarization on Capitol Hill.

Medicare, Medicaid, and drug costs

Biden has called for a host of reforms targeting Medicare, Medicaid, and rising drug costs.

On Medicare, which primarily covers seniors 65 and older, Biden has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. That could extend Medicare to up to 20 million more Americans.

On Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income and disabled Americans, the president-elect supports increased federal funding to states during the current economic crisis, and potentially beyond.

Medicare is likely to become a key focus of the new administration, in light of the pressures the pandemic is placing on Medicare funding.

In April, Medicare’s trustees said that the Part A trust fund for the program, which pays for hospital and inpatient care, could start to run dry in 2026.

But those projections did not include the impact of COVID-19. Some economists have since projected that Medicare Part A could become insolvent as early as 2022.

Medicare Part B, which pays for doctor and outpatient costs, is funded by general tax funding and beneficiary insurance premiums, so it is not in danger of drying up.

Adding to those pressures is an executive order Trump signed in August temporarily deferring payroll taxes, a primary funding vehicle for Medicare and Social Security.

Under these taxes, employees pay 6.2% of their earnings (on annual income up to $137,700) toward Social Security and 1.45% for Medicare taxes each pay period. Employers pay the same rate per paycheck, adding up to a combined 12.4% Social Security tax and 2.9% Medicare tax.

Biden has said he would reverse the tax cut when he takes office.

But to get a handle on Medicare and Medicaid funding issues, he is likely to need congressional support. Corlette and other experts say that could be a challenge while the nation remains in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to his Medicare and Medicaid reforms, Biden has proposed several plans to lower drug prices, a subset of rising health care and insurance costs.

U.S. spending on prescription drugs has increased nearly 42% over the past decade -- from $253.1 billion in 2010 to $358.7 billion in 2020 (projected) -- according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In 2020, retail prices for 460 commonly prescribed drugs have spiked an average of 5.2%, according to new analysis by 3 Axis Advisors, a health research firm.

That’s more than double the projected rate of inflation.

To control drug costs, Biden supports legislation approved by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last year that would empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices with drug companies, as private insurers do.

Federal law now bars Medicare from negotiating prices on behalf of the 67.7 million Americans who use it. Drug companies and many GOP leaders argue that the current law is necessary to allow them to spend more on research and development of new medications.

In addition, Biden supports the idea of lifting bans on importing drugs from foreign countries with lower costs.

He also backs creating an independent review board to set price caps for new medications with no competitors; making high-quality generics more available; ending tax breaks for drug company advertising; and limiting their leeway in raising prices.

All of these proposals would likely require congressional approval and could face legal challenges in the courts.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Black patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are known to have significantly elevated risk for stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD), compared with non-Black patients with SLE.

Now a team of investigators has identified SLE-specific predictors for major cardiovascular complications in Black patients, pointing to potential prevention strategies in this high-risk population.

Among Black patients in a study of 336 patients with incident SLE, discoid rash at the time of SLE diagnosis predicted a fivefold higher risk for stroke, and renal disorder at the time of diagnosis was associated with a twofold higher risk, compared with non-Black patients, but neither of these symptoms predicted elevated risk of IHD.

In contrast, neurologic disorders, including prior psychosis or seizure, were associated with a fourfold higher risk for IHD, and immunologic disorders including anti-DNA, anti-Smith, or antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with a nearly fivefold greater risk for IHD in Black patients, but neither of these comorbidities predicted strokes, reported Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

“Our study was one of the first to highlight racial disparities in CVD subtypes, with a threefold higher stroke risk and 24-fold higher ischemic heart disease risk in Black patients with lupus. Compared to previous studies in Black populations, our study highlights different peak timing of early stroke and ischemic heart disease in our cohort,“ she said at a plenary session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The study is one of the first to identify specific and unique SLE disease-related predictors of stroke and ischemic heart disease, she said.

Georgia Lupus Registry data

Dr. Garg and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and Emory University in Atlanta drew on data from the Georgia Lupus Registry, a population-based registry of SLE patients from the Atlanta area. They identified patients diagnosed from 2002 through 2004 who had four or more ACR criteria for SLE, or three or more criteria plus a final diagnosis of SLE made by their board-certified rheumatologists.

The patients were matched to the Georgia Hospital Discharge Database and National Death Index from 2000 through 2013, with stroke- and IHD-related hospitalizations and deaths classified by the first three admission codes or cause-of-death codes.

Patients with transient ischemic attacks were included in the stroke category, and those with myocardial infarction and angina were included in the IHD category.

They identified 336 patients, 87% of whom were female, and 75% of whom were Black. The mean age at SLE diagnosis was 40 years. Among this cohort, there were 38 stroke-related events or deaths and 25 IHD-related events or deaths recorded from the period 2 years before through 14 years after an SLE diagnosis.
 

Early stroke, late IHD

The investigators first looked at the timing of stroke vs. IHD and found that a disproportionately high percentage of stroke events occurred in the second year after SLE diagnosis, whereas the peak of IHD-related events occurred in the 14^th year after diagnosis.

They then performed a race-stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, and found a threefold higher risk for stroke in Black patients versus non-Black patients (P = .007) and a 24-fold higher risk for IHD (P < .0001).

In multivariate analysis, significant predictors of stroke were Black race with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.4 (P = .028), discoid rash (HR, 4.6; P = .0028), and renal disorder (HR, 2.4; P = .04). However, stroke was not predicted by age, sex, immunologic disorder, serositis, hematologic disorder, or ACR criteria total greater than four.

Significant predictors of IHD included age 65 and older (HR, 61; P = .0007), Black race (HR, 24; P = .004), neurologic disorder (HR, 4.0; P = .018), and immunologic disorder (HR, 4.7; P = .02). But IHD could not be predicted by oral ulcers, discoid rash, or ACR criteria more than four.

“In future studies, we will examine mechanisms that drive the different timing and predictors of CVD subtypes and disparities. We will also examine the impact of timely prevention in high-risk SLE subsets,” Dr. Garg said.
 

Managing CVD risk

Angus Worthing, MD, from Arthritis & Rheumatism Associates in Chevy Chase, Md., and Washington, D.C., who moderated a press briefing where Dr. Garg discussed her data, routinely treats patients of different racial backgrounds with lupus. When asked how he manages patients with SLE and suspected cardiovascular complications, Dr. Worthing said, “I tend to, in my practice – and these kinds of studies may change what I do – watch for symptoms that might reflect coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease, potentially looking at the smaller arteries in the hands and feet as clues, and I will refer promptly to a vascular surgery expert or cardiologist for screening,” he said.

Dr. Garg added that in her practice, she and colleagues treat high-risk subsets of patients, such as those with lupus nephritis or multiple comorbidities, with aggressive blood pressure control and monitoring, as well as smoking cessation recommendations and lipid monitoring. They also try to limit or, if possible, decrease steroid doses to reduce risk for cardiovascular side effects.

Support for the study came in part from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Garg and Dr. Worthing reported having no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 433 .

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) had a clinically significant reduction in musculoskeletal pain when compared with those who received sham stimulation during a brief pilot trial.

“Our study population included individuals with significant pain and exemplifies the unmet need for adequate control of pain and fatigue in SLE. Importantly, this was a double-blind, sham-controlled study and neither the subject nor assessor was aware of a subject’s intervention. Objective outcomes, that is, tender and swollen joint counts, were also significantly reduced in subjects receiving taVNS, compared with those receiving [sham stimulation]. The stimulation was well tolerated with no adverse events attributed to the intervention, and, clinical benefits continued after taVNS was stopped,” first author Cynthia Aranow, MD, and her colleagues at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Stimulation of the vagus nerve can be achieved through the ear via its auricular branch, which innervates the cymba concha in the outer ear. Past pilot studies of implanted VNS devices lasting 6 weeks to 6 months in patients with Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis have shown improvements in measures of disease activity as well as objective markers of inflammation, and a more recent trial testing a transcutaneous devices’s effect in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome found significant reductions in fatigue over a 26-day period, the investigators noted.

In the taVNS device study, the researchers recruited 18 patients with SLE who had musculoskeletal pain rated as 4 or higher on a 10-cm visual analog scale and randomized them in a 2:1 ratio to receive taVNS once per day for 5 minutes for 4 consecutive days versus sham stimulation. Patients were allowed to be on stable doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and/or prednisone ≤ 10 mg/day, with no change of dose within 28 days prior to baseline. The study excluded patients who used tobacco or an anticholinergic medication and those with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

The 12 patients who received actual taVNS had a significantly greater reduction in their pain, compared with 6 sham-treated patients (–5.00 vs. 0.10; P = .049), with 10 of 12 and 1 of 6 having a clinical response (a reduction of at least 1.58 on a 10-cm visual analog scale from baseline to day 5). Stimulation-treated patients also reported significantly greater reductions in fatigue, with 10 of 12 achieving a meaningful reduction, defined as a 4-point improvement on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Subscale; none of the sham-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement of fatigue. The patients who received taVNS had resolution of all swollen and tender joints, compared with 5.3% of tender and 9.1% of swollen joints in sham-treated patients. Ex vivo lipopolysaccharide stimulation of whole-blood samples from taVNS-treated patients, however, showed no reductions of inflammatory mediators or chemokines in tests on day 5 and day 12.

The investigators reported that there were no adverse events attributed to taVNS, including no reports of headache, lightheadedness, tinnitus, ear irritation, or changes to the external skin of the outer ear.

The study was supported by a grant from the John and Marcia Goldman Foundation. One author reported a financial relationship with Set Point Medical and My String, and three authors reported having a provisional patent application titled “Auricular stimulation device, system and methods of use.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aranow C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217872.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Amid recent reports of hackers targeting and blackmailing health care systems and even patients, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies have issued warning of “imminent” cyberattacks on more U.S. hospitals.

Thinkstock compilation

A new report released by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, noted that the FBI and the Department of Health & Human Services have “credible information of an increased and imminent cybercrime threat to U.S. hospitals and health care providers.”

The agencies are urging “timely and reasonable precautions” to protect health care networks from these threats.

As reported, hackers accessed patient records at Vastaamo, Finland’s largest private psychotherapy system, and emailed some patients last month demanding €200 in bitcoin or else personal health data would be released online.

In June, the University of California, San Francisco, experienced an information technology (IT) “security incident” that led to the payout of $1.14 million to individuals responsible for a malware attack in exchange for the return of data.

In addition, last week, Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls, Ore., released a statement in which it said there had been a ransomware attack on its computer systems. Although “there is no evidence that patient information has been compromised,” some of its systems are still down.

“We’re open for business, it’s just not business as usual,” Tom Hottman, public information officer at Sky Lakes, said in an interview.

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview, “People have known for a long time that there are nefarious actors out there.” He said all health care systems should be prepared to deal with these problems.

“In the face of a warning from the FBI, I’d say that’s even more important now,” Dr. Appelbaum added.
 

‘Malicious cyber actors’

In the new CISA report, the agency noted that it, the FBI, and the HHS have been assessing “malicious cyber actors” targeting health care systems with malware loaders such as TrickBot and BazarLoader, which often lead to data theft, ransomware attacks, and service disruptions.

“The cybercriminal enterprise behind TrickBot, which is likely also the creator of BazarLoader malware, has continued to develop new functionality and tools, increasing the ease, speed, and profitability of victimization,” the report authors wrote.

Phishing campaigns often contain attachments with malware or links to malicious websites. “Loaders start the infection chain by distributing the payload,” the report noted. A backdoor mechanism is then installed on the victim’s device.

In addition to TrickBot and BazarLoader (or BazarBackdoor), the report discussed other malicious tools, including Ryuk and Conti, which are types of ransomware that can infect systems for hackers’ financial gain.

“These issues will be particularly challenging for organizations within the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, administrators will need to balance this risk when determining their cybersecurity investments,” the agencies wrote.

Dr. Appelbaum said his organization is taking the warning seriously.

“When the report first came out, I received emails from every system that I’m affiliated with warning about it and encouraging me as a member of the medical staff to take the usual prudent precautions,” such as not opening attachments or links from unknown sources, he said.

“The FBI warning has what seems like very reasonable advice, which is that every system should automatically back up their data off site in a separate system that’s differently accessible,” he added.

After a ransomware attack, the most recently entered information may not be backed up and could get lost, but “that’s a lot easier to deal with then losing access to all of your medical records,” said Dr. Appelbaum.

Ipsit Vahia, MD, medical director at the Institute for Technology and Psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., noted that, in answer to the FBI warning, he has heard that many centers, including his own, are warning their clinicians not to open any email attachments at this time.
 

Recent attacks

UCSF issued a statement noting that malware detected in early June led to the encryption of “a limited number of servers” in its medical school, making them temporarily inaccessible.

“We do not currently believe patient medical records were exposed,” the university said in the statement.

It added that because the encrypted data were necessary for “some of the academic work” conducted at UCSF, they agreed to pay a portion of the ransom demand – about $1.14 million. The hackers then provided a tool that unlocked the encrypted data.

“We continue to cooperate with law enforcement and we appreciate everyone’s understanding that we are limited in what we can share while we continue our investigation,” the statement reads. UCSF declined a request for further comment.

At Sky Lakes Medical Center, computer systems are still down after its ransomware attack, including use of electronic medical records, but the Oregon-based health care system is still seeing patients.

They are “being interviewed old school,” with the admitting process being conducted on paper, “but patient care goes on,” said Mr. Hottman.

In addition to a teaching hospital, Sky Lakes comprises specialty and primary care clinics, including a cancer treatment center. All remain open to patients at this time.

Diagnostic imaging is also continuing, but “getting the image to a place it can be read” has become more complicated, said Mr. Hottman.

“We have some work-arounds in process, and a plan is being assembled that we think will be in place as early as this weekend so that we can get those images read starting next week,” he said.

In addition, “scheduling is a little clunky,” he reported. However, “we have an awesome staff with a good attitude, so there’s still a whole lot we can do.”

He also noted that his institution has reconfirmed that, as of Nov. 4, no patient data had been compromised.

‘Especially chilling’

Targeting hospitals through cyberattacks isn’t new. In 2017, the WannaCry virus affected more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, including the operating system of the U.K. National Health Service. The cyberattack locked clinicians out of NHS patient records and other digital tools for 3 days.

Dr. Appelbaum noted that, as hospital systems become more dependent on the Internet and on electronic communications, they become more vulnerable to data breaches.

“I think it’s clear that there have been concerted efforts lately to undertake attacks on health care IT systems to either hold them hostage, as in a ransomware attack, or to download files and use that information for profit,” he said.

Still, Dr. Vahia noted that contacting patients directly, which occurred in the Finland data breach and blackmail scheme, is something new. It is “especially chilling” that individual psychiatric patients were targeted.

“It is difficult to even fathom the kind of damage that can be done by compromised mental health records. It’s difficult to overstate how big a deal this is, and we should be treating it with the appropriate level of urgency,” he said in an interview.

“It shows how badly things can go wrong when security is compromised; and it should make us take a step back and survey the world of digital health to gain recognition of how much risk there might be that we haven’t really understood before,” Dr. Vahia said.
 

Clinical tips

Asked whether he had any tips to share with clinicians, Mr. Hottman noted that the best time to have a plan is before something dire happens.

“I would make [the possibility of cyberattacks] part of the emergency preparedness program. What if you don’t have access to computers? What do you do?” It’s important to answer those questions prior to systems going down, he said.

Mr. Hottman reported that after a mechanical failure last year put their computer systems offline for a day, “we started putting all critical information on paper and in a binder,” including phone numbers for the state police.

Dr. Vahia noted that another important step for clinicians “is to just pause and take stock of how digitally dependent” health care is becoming. He also warned that precautions should be taken regarding wearables and apps, as well as for electronic medical records. He noted the importance of strong passwords and two-step verification processes.

Even with the risks, digital technology has had a major impact on health care efficiency. “It’s not perfect, the work is ongoing, and there are big questions that need to be addressed, but in the end, the ability of technology when used right and securely” leads to better patient care, he said.

John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, agreed that digital health care is and will remain very important; but at the same time, security issues need proper attention.

“When you look back at medical hacks that have happened, there’s often a human error behind it. It’s rare for someone to break encryption. I think we have pretty darn good security, but we need to realize that sometimes errors will happen,” he said in an interview.

As an example, Dr. Torous, who is also chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Health and Technology Committee, cited phishing emails, which depend on a user clicking a link that can cause a virus to be downloaded into their network.

“You can be cautious, but it takes just one person to download an attachment with a virus in it” to cause disruptions, Dr. Torous said.
 

Telehealth implications

After its data breach, Vastaamo posted on its website a notice that video is never recorded during the centers’ telehealth sessions, and so patients need not worry that any videos could be leaked online.

Asked whether video is commonly recorded during telehealth sessions in the United States, Dr. Vahia said that he was not aware of sessions being recorded, especially because the amount of the data would be too great to store indefinitely.

Dr. Appelbaum agreed and said that, to his knowledge, no clinicians at Columbia University are recording telehealth sessions. He said that it would represent a privacy threat, and he noted that most health care providers “don’t have the time to go back and watch videos of their interactions with patients.”

In the case of recordings for research purposes, he emphasized that it would be important to get consent and then store the health information offline.

As for other telehealth security risks, Dr. Vahia noted that it is possible that if a computer or device is compromised, an individual could hack into a camera and observe the session. In addition to microphones, “these pose some especially high vulnerabilities,” he said. “Clinicians need to pay attention as to whether the cameras they’re using for telecare are on or if they’re covered when not in use. And they should pay attention to security settings on smartphones and ensure microphones are not turned on as the default.”

Dr. Appelbaum said the HIPAA requires that telehealth sessions be conducted on secure systems, so clinicians need to ascertain whether the system they’re using complies with that rule.

“Particularly people who are not part of larger systems and would not usually take on that responsibility, maybe they’re in private practice or a small group, they really need to check on the security level and on HIPAA compliance and not just assume that it is adequately secure,” he said.

Dr. Appelbaum, who is also a past president of the APA and director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University, noted that the major risk for hospitals after a cyberattack is probably not liability to individual patients.

“It’s much more likely that they would face fines from HIPAA if it’s found that they failed to live up to HIPAA requirements,” he said.

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

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.