Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The first blood test to detect the presence of amyloid, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease, is now available for clinical use, according to C2N Diagnostics, the company behind the test’s development. The availability of the noninvasive, easily administered test is being called a milestone in the early detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

The blood test “introduces a new option for patients, families, and the medical community that have eagerly awaited innovative tools to address Alzheimer’s troubling problems,” Joel B. Braunstein, MD, MBA, CEO of C2N Diagnostics, said in a press release.

“This is really an important advance,” said Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), which partially funded the development of the test, in a separate press release.

“You can now walk into your doctor’s office to get a blood test to help detect Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Fillit. “This test answers a critical need for less costly and accessible diagnostic testing in memory and dementia care.”
 

A word of caution

However, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Association, highlighted the need for caution. The test is “very new,” experts have only “limited information” about it, and it is only available by prescription from a healthcare provider for patients with cognitive impairment, said Dr. Carrillo.

“The test is not [Food and Drug Administration] approved and it does not, on its own, diagnose Alzheimer’s disease,” added Dr. Carrillo. “Without FDA review, healthcare providers lack the agency’s guidance for how to use it when making decisions about a person’s health or treatment.”

Dr. Carrillo also noted that the test has only been studied in a limited number of individuals and that few data are available regarding underrepresented populations.

“As a result, it is not clear how accurate or generalizable the results are for all individuals and populations,” she noted.

Another factor to consider, said Dr. Carrillo, is that the test is not covered by insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid.
 

How it works

The test (PrecivityAD) is for use in patients with cognitive impairment. It requires a very small blood sample – as little as a teaspoon – from the patient’s forearm. The physician sends the sample to C2N Diagnostic’s specialized laboratory, where it is analyzed using mass spectrometry to measure concentrations of amyloid beta 42 and 40 and to detect the presence of apolipoprotein E isoforms.

The lab report, which is sent to the patient’s physician, details biomarker levels and provides an overall combined score, known as the Amyloid Probability Score, to assess the likelihood of low, intermediate, or high levels of amyloid plaque in the brain.

The company reports that, on the basis of data from 686 patients older than 60 years who had subjective cognitive impairment or dementia, the test correctly identified brain amyloid plaque status, as determined by quantitative amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, in 86% of the patients. In the analysis, the area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic was 0.88.

The company notes that the test, the results of which require interpretation by a health care provider, is an important new tool to aid physicians in the evaluation process.

The new blood test is currently available in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

C2N Diagnostics is moving ahead with development of a brain health panel to detect multiple blood-based markers for Alzheimer’s disease to aid in disease staging, treatment monitoring, and differential diagnosis.

The ADDF believes the path to approval of treatments of Alzheimer’s disease starts with a better diagnosis, Dr. Fillit said in his organization’s press release.

“Investing in biomarker research has been a core goal for the ADDF because reliable, accessible, and affordable biomarkers for Alzheimer’s diagnosis are critical to our ability to find drugs to prevent, slow, and even cure the disease. Our funding helped bring the first PET scan to market and now has helped bring the first blood test to market,” he said.

In addition to the ADDF, the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the BrightFocus Foundation contributed funding for the development of the amyloid blood test.

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

The first blood test to detect the presence of amyloid, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease, is now available for clinical use, according to C2N Diagnostics, the company behind the test’s development. The availability of the noninvasive, easily administered test is being called a milestone in the early detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

The blood test “introduces a new option for patients, families, and the medical community that have eagerly awaited innovative tools to address Alzheimer’s troubling problems,” Joel B. Braunstein, MD, MBA, CEO of C2N Diagnostics, said in a press release.

“This is really an important advance,” said Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), which partially funded the development of the test, in a separate press release.

“You can now walk into your doctor’s office to get a blood test to help detect Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Fillit. “This test answers a critical need for less costly and accessible diagnostic testing in memory and dementia care.”
 

A word of caution

However, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Association, highlighted the need for caution. The test is “very new,” experts have only “limited information” about it, and it is only available by prescription from a healthcare provider for patients with cognitive impairment, said Dr. Carrillo.

“The test is not [Food and Drug Administration] approved and it does not, on its own, diagnose Alzheimer’s disease,” added Dr. Carrillo. “Without FDA review, healthcare providers lack the agency’s guidance for how to use it when making decisions about a person’s health or treatment.”

Dr. Carrillo also noted that the test has only been studied in a limited number of individuals and that few data are available regarding underrepresented populations.

“As a result, it is not clear how accurate or generalizable the results are for all individuals and populations,” she noted.

Another factor to consider, said Dr. Carrillo, is that the test is not covered by insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid.
 

How it works

The test (PrecivityAD) is for use in patients with cognitive impairment. It requires a very small blood sample – as little as a teaspoon – from the patient’s forearm. The physician sends the sample to C2N Diagnostic’s specialized laboratory, where it is analyzed using mass spectrometry to measure concentrations of amyloid beta 42 and 40 and to detect the presence of apolipoprotein E isoforms.

The lab report, which is sent to the patient’s physician, details biomarker levels and provides an overall combined score, known as the Amyloid Probability Score, to assess the likelihood of low, intermediate, or high levels of amyloid plaque in the brain.

The company reports that, on the basis of data from 686 patients older than 60 years who had subjective cognitive impairment or dementia, the test correctly identified brain amyloid plaque status, as determined by quantitative amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, in 86% of the patients. In the analysis, the area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic was 0.88.

The company notes that the test, the results of which require interpretation by a health care provider, is an important new tool to aid physicians in the evaluation process.

The new blood test is currently available in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

C2N Diagnostics is moving ahead with development of a brain health panel to detect multiple blood-based markers for Alzheimer’s disease to aid in disease staging, treatment monitoring, and differential diagnosis.

The ADDF believes the path to approval of treatments of Alzheimer’s disease starts with a better diagnosis, Dr. Fillit said in his organization’s press release.

“Investing in biomarker research has been a core goal for the ADDF because reliable, accessible, and affordable biomarkers for Alzheimer’s diagnosis are critical to our ability to find drugs to prevent, slow, and even cure the disease. Our funding helped bring the first PET scan to market and now has helped bring the first blood test to market,” he said.

In addition to the ADDF, the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the BrightFocus Foundation contributed funding for the development of the amyloid blood test.

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

The first blood test to detect the presence of amyloid, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease, is now available for clinical use, according to C2N Diagnostics, the company behind the test’s development. The availability of the noninvasive, easily administered test is being called a milestone in the early detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease.

The blood test “introduces a new option for patients, families, and the medical community that have eagerly awaited innovative tools to address Alzheimer’s troubling problems,” Joel B. Braunstein, MD, MBA, CEO of C2N Diagnostics, said in a press release.

“This is really an important advance,” said Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), which partially funded the development of the test, in a separate press release.

“You can now walk into your doctor’s office to get a blood test to help detect Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Fillit. “This test answers a critical need for less costly and accessible diagnostic testing in memory and dementia care.”
 

A word of caution

However, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Association, highlighted the need for caution. The test is “very new,” experts have only “limited information” about it, and it is only available by prescription from a healthcare provider for patients with cognitive impairment, said Dr. Carrillo.

“The test is not [Food and Drug Administration] approved and it does not, on its own, diagnose Alzheimer’s disease,” added Dr. Carrillo. “Without FDA review, healthcare providers lack the agency’s guidance for how to use it when making decisions about a person’s health or treatment.”

Dr. Carrillo also noted that the test has only been studied in a limited number of individuals and that few data are available regarding underrepresented populations.

“As a result, it is not clear how accurate or generalizable the results are for all individuals and populations,” she noted.

Another factor to consider, said Dr. Carrillo, is that the test is not covered by insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid.
 

How it works

The test (PrecivityAD) is for use in patients with cognitive impairment. It requires a very small blood sample – as little as a teaspoon – from the patient’s forearm. The physician sends the sample to C2N Diagnostic’s specialized laboratory, where it is analyzed using mass spectrometry to measure concentrations of amyloid beta 42 and 40 and to detect the presence of apolipoprotein E isoforms.

The lab report, which is sent to the patient’s physician, details biomarker levels and provides an overall combined score, known as the Amyloid Probability Score, to assess the likelihood of low, intermediate, or high levels of amyloid plaque in the brain.

The company reports that, on the basis of data from 686 patients older than 60 years who had subjective cognitive impairment or dementia, the test correctly identified brain amyloid plaque status, as determined by quantitative amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, in 86% of the patients. In the analysis, the area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic was 0.88.

The company notes that the test, the results of which require interpretation by a health care provider, is an important new tool to aid physicians in the evaluation process.

The new blood test is currently available in 45 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

C2N Diagnostics is moving ahead with development of a brain health panel to detect multiple blood-based markers for Alzheimer’s disease to aid in disease staging, treatment monitoring, and differential diagnosis.

The ADDF believes the path to approval of treatments of Alzheimer’s disease starts with a better diagnosis, Dr. Fillit said in his organization’s press release.

“Investing in biomarker research has been a core goal for the ADDF because reliable, accessible, and affordable biomarkers for Alzheimer’s diagnosis are critical to our ability to find drugs to prevent, slow, and even cure the disease. Our funding helped bring the first PET scan to market and now has helped bring the first blood test to market,” he said.

In addition to the ADDF, the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the BrightFocus Foundation contributed funding for the development of the amyloid blood test.

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

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

The Diagnosis: Heparin-Induced Bullous Hemorrhagic Dermatosis

Results of a punch biopsy of one of the hemorrhagic papules revealed a subcorneal hemorrhagic vesicle without underlying vasculitis, vasculopathy, inflammation, or viral changes (Figure). Tissue and blood cultures were sterile. Heparin and platelet factor 4 antibody testing was negative. The patient was diagnosed with heparin induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis (BHD). After chest imaging ruled out a pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation therapy was discontinued. Respiratory symptoms improved on antibiotics, and the skin lesions resolved completely within 2 weeks.

Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is an uncommon and underrecognized reaction to various anticoagulants. Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis presents with painless, noninflammatory, hemorrhagic vesicles and bullae occurring at sites distant from anticoagulant administration. The condition was first characterized in 2006 by Perrinaud et al,¹ who presented 3 cases in patients treated with heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin. Since then, there have been at least 90 cases reported in the international literature, with elderly men found to be the more affected demographic (male to female ratio, 1.9:1).² Typically, BHD presents within 1 week of administration of an anticoagulant, but delayed onset has been reported.² Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is most commonly observed with enoxaparin use but also has been described in association with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin products, and warfarin.²

The noninflammatory-appearing hemorrhagic papules and small plaques of BHD generally are seen on the extremities but can occur anywhere on the body including the oral mucosa.³ The differential diagnosis of BHD may include autoimmune vesiculobullous conditions, bullous drug eruptions, herpetic infection, supratherapeutic anticoagulation, porphyria cutanea tarda, amyloidosis, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, angioinvasive infections, and heparin necrosis. Diagnosis of BHD can be made clinically, but a biopsy is useful to exclude other conditions.

Histologically, BHD is characterized by the presence of intraepidermal hemorrhagic bullae without thrombotic, inflammatory, or vasculitic changes. Although heparinrelated skin lesions have been attributed to various mechanisms, including immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, type IV hypersensitivity reactions, type I allergic hypersensitivity reactions, pustulosis, and skin necrosis, the pathogenesis of BHD remains poorly understood.⁴ The condition has demonstrated koebnerization in some cases.⁵

In our patient, the absence of histologic inflammation, viral changes, vasculitis, and amyloid deposition helped rule out the other entities in the differential. The absence of heparin and platelet factor 4 antibodies helped exclude heparin necrosis. Direct immunofluorescence testing was not obtained in our patient but may be used to evaluate for an immunobullous etiology.

Management strategies for BHD are variable, and associated evidence is lacking. Treatment of BHD should be considered in the clinical context based on the necessity for anticoagulation and the severity of the eruption. Discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy, if possible, may prevent morbidity in some cases.⁶ If it is necessary to continue anticoagulation therapy, changing the drug or decreasing the dose are reasonable options. Skin lesions may resolve even if anticoagulation therapy is continued at the same dose.^7,8 Concurrent supportive wound care is beneficial.

The Diagnosis: Heparin-Induced Bullous Hemorrhagic Dermatosis

Results of a punch biopsy of one of the hemorrhagic papules revealed a subcorneal hemorrhagic vesicle without underlying vasculitis, vasculopathy, inflammation, or viral changes (Figure). Tissue and blood cultures were sterile. Heparin and platelet factor 4 antibody testing was negative. The patient was diagnosed with heparin induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis (BHD). After chest imaging ruled out a pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation therapy was discontinued. Respiratory symptoms improved on antibiotics, and the skin lesions resolved completely within 2 weeks.

Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is an uncommon and underrecognized reaction to various anticoagulants. Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis presents with painless, noninflammatory, hemorrhagic vesicles and bullae occurring at sites distant from anticoagulant administration. The condition was first characterized in 2006 by Perrinaud et al,¹ who presented 3 cases in patients treated with heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin. Since then, there have been at least 90 cases reported in the international literature, with elderly men found to be the more affected demographic (male to female ratio, 1.9:1).² Typically, BHD presents within 1 week of administration of an anticoagulant, but delayed onset has been reported.² Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is most commonly observed with enoxaparin use but also has been described in association with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin products, and warfarin.²

The noninflammatory-appearing hemorrhagic papules and small plaques of BHD generally are seen on the extremities but can occur anywhere on the body including the oral mucosa.³ The differential diagnosis of BHD may include autoimmune vesiculobullous conditions, bullous drug eruptions, herpetic infection, supratherapeutic anticoagulation, porphyria cutanea tarda, amyloidosis, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, angioinvasive infections, and heparin necrosis. Diagnosis of BHD can be made clinically, but a biopsy is useful to exclude other conditions.

Histologically, BHD is characterized by the presence of intraepidermal hemorrhagic bullae without thrombotic, inflammatory, or vasculitic changes. Although heparinrelated skin lesions have been attributed to various mechanisms, including immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, type IV hypersensitivity reactions, type I allergic hypersensitivity reactions, pustulosis, and skin necrosis, the pathogenesis of BHD remains poorly understood.⁴ The condition has demonstrated koebnerization in some cases.⁵

In our patient, the absence of histologic inflammation, viral changes, vasculitis, and amyloid deposition helped rule out the other entities in the differential. The absence of heparin and platelet factor 4 antibodies helped exclude heparin necrosis. Direct immunofluorescence testing was not obtained in our patient but may be used to evaluate for an immunobullous etiology.

Management strategies for BHD are variable, and associated evidence is lacking. Treatment of BHD should be considered in the clinical context based on the necessity for anticoagulation and the severity of the eruption. Discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy, if possible, may prevent morbidity in some cases.⁶ If it is necessary to continue anticoagulation therapy, changing the drug or decreasing the dose are reasonable options. Skin lesions may resolve even if anticoagulation therapy is continued at the same dose.^7,8 Concurrent supportive wound care is beneficial.

The Diagnosis: Heparin-Induced Bullous Hemorrhagic Dermatosis

Results of a punch biopsy of one of the hemorrhagic papules revealed a subcorneal hemorrhagic vesicle without underlying vasculitis, vasculopathy, inflammation, or viral changes (Figure). Tissue and blood cultures were sterile. Heparin and platelet factor 4 antibody testing was negative. The patient was diagnosed with heparin induced bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis (BHD). After chest imaging ruled out a pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation therapy was discontinued. Respiratory symptoms improved on antibiotics, and the skin lesions resolved completely within 2 weeks.

Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is an uncommon and underrecognized reaction to various anticoagulants. Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis presents with painless, noninflammatory, hemorrhagic vesicles and bullae occurring at sites distant from anticoagulant administration. The condition was first characterized in 2006 by Perrinaud et al,¹ who presented 3 cases in patients treated with heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin. Since then, there have been at least 90 cases reported in the international literature, with elderly men found to be the more affected demographic (male to female ratio, 1.9:1).² Typically, BHD presents within 1 week of administration of an anticoagulant, but delayed onset has been reported.² Bullous hemorrhagic dermatosis is most commonly observed with enoxaparin use but also has been described in association with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin products, and warfarin.²

The noninflammatory-appearing hemorrhagic papules and small plaques of BHD generally are seen on the extremities but can occur anywhere on the body including the oral mucosa.³ The differential diagnosis of BHD may include autoimmune vesiculobullous conditions, bullous drug eruptions, herpetic infection, supratherapeutic anticoagulation, porphyria cutanea tarda, amyloidosis, leukocytoclastic vasculitis, angioinvasive infections, and heparin necrosis. Diagnosis of BHD can be made clinically, but a biopsy is useful to exclude other conditions.

Histologically, BHD is characterized by the presence of intraepidermal hemorrhagic bullae without thrombotic, inflammatory, or vasculitic changes. Although heparinrelated skin lesions have been attributed to various mechanisms, including immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, type IV hypersensitivity reactions, type I allergic hypersensitivity reactions, pustulosis, and skin necrosis, the pathogenesis of BHD remains poorly understood.⁴ The condition has demonstrated koebnerization in some cases.⁵

In our patient, the absence of histologic inflammation, viral changes, vasculitis, and amyloid deposition helped rule out the other entities in the differential. The absence of heparin and platelet factor 4 antibodies helped exclude heparin necrosis. Direct immunofluorescence testing was not obtained in our patient but may be used to evaluate for an immunobullous etiology.

Management strategies for BHD are variable, and associated evidence is lacking. Treatment of BHD should be considered in the clinical context based on the necessity for anticoagulation and the severity of the eruption. Discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy, if possible, may prevent morbidity in some cases.⁶ If it is necessary to continue anticoagulation therapy, changing the drug or decreasing the dose are reasonable options. Skin lesions may resolve even if anticoagulation therapy is continued at the same dose.^7,8 Concurrent supportive wound care is beneficial.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D