BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – An investigational natural killer cell (NK) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, in a small phase 1 proof-of-concept clinical trial.

SNK01, being developed by NKGen Biotech, is an autologous, nongenetically modified NK cell product that has enhanced cytotoxicity and activating receptor expression.

“When we give these enhanced natural killer cells intravenously, not only do they get into the brain, but we’ve shown, through CSF biomarker data, that they reduce both amyloid and tau proteins, dramatically reducing the neuroinflammation,” said Paul Song, MD, chief executive officer of NKGen Biotech.

“Remarkably,” in the first 6 months, 90% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease demonstrated improvement or maintained stable cognitive function, based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS), suggesting that SNK01 may do more than simply slow disease progression, Dr. Song said.

The findings were presented at the 16th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Sound rationale

NK cells are an essential part of the innate immune system that can shape the adaptive response by eliminating activated (not resting) autologous CD4+ T cells. Weak or deficient NK cells have been found to correlate with various diseases, including autoimmune diseases, and emerging data suggest an autoimmune component to Alzheimer’s disease.

The phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of SNK01 given intravenously in escalating doses every 3 weeks (four treatments in total).

Participants included 10 patients with Alzheimer’s disease confirmed by imaging. Five had mild Alzheimer’s disease, three had moderate Alzheimer’s disease, and two had advanced Alzheimer’s disease, based on baseline Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Median baseline CDR-SB score was 9 (range, 4-18).

Cognitive assessments included CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and ADCOMS. CSF biomarker analyses were performed at baseline and at 1 and 12 weeks after the final dose (weeks 11 and 22, respectively).

NK cells were successfully activated and expanded in all 10 patients and no treatment-related adverse events were observed.

Based on the CSF biomarker data, SNK01 crossed the blood–brain barrier and reduced CSF amyloid-beta 42/40 and pTau181 levels and neuroinflammation, as measured by glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), and the effects appeared to persist 12 weeks after the final dose.

The exploratory efficacy data show that, 1 week after final dose (week 11), compared with baseline, 30% of patients showed clinical improvement on the composite ADCOMS and 60% had a stable ADCOMS score; 50%-70% of patients were stable or improved on the CDR-SB, ADAS-Cog and/or MMSE.

“One patient went from a MMSE score of 14, which is moderate dementia, to 22, which is mild cognitive impairment,” said Dr. Song.

At 12 weeks after the final dose (week 22), 44%-89% of patients remained stable or improved in all cognitive scores compared with week 11; and 50% of the patients with stable ADCOMS scores at week 11 remained stable.

Based on the positive phase 1 data, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a phase 1/2a study in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. “The trial will use a much higher dose and a prolonged dosing regimen and we think we’ll see even more dramatic results with more sustained higher dosing,” Dr. Song said.

Down the road, it will be interesting to see how NK cell therapy could “complement” anti-amyloid and anti-tau therapies, he added.
 

Ideal treatment approach

Commenting on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said NK cells have “natural abilities that could make them an ideal treatment approach for Alzheimer’s and similar neurodegenerative diseases.

“NK cells have properties that allow them to recognize and destroy diseased brain cells while leaving healthy cells intact, without causing excessive inflammation or autoimmune issues. It has historically been difficult to get immune cells to access the privileged immunological environment of the brain,” Dr. Lakhan explained.

“However, this line of early research shows that NK cells safely crosses the blood–brain barrier, infiltrates brain tissue, and may stave off Alzheimer’s disease as measured by biomarkers and clinical symptoms,” he noted.

“This emerging cell-based immunotherapy is highly-specific to the cells responsible for Alzheimer’s, avoids drug resistance, has long-lasting results, and has fewer side effects than drug counterparts,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The trial was sponsored by NKGen Biotech. Dr. Song and six coauthors are employees and shareholders in the company. Dr. Lakhan reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

What’s in a day’s work? For doctors, it’s typically a mix of seeing patients and completing paperwork and follow-up. Often it extends well past the standard workday.

Dennis Hursh, JD, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, describes one overwhelmed ob.gyn. who recently consulted him for this problem.

“My client had accepted a position in a group practice where his contract stated he would be working during normal office hours, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – in other words, a 40-hour workweek,” Mr. Hursh said.

But the distressed physician discovered that actually, he was working almost twice as many hours. “He’d get to work early to do charting, then see patients during the 40 hours, perhaps grabbing a quick sandwich for a few minutes – and then stay after 5 [p.m.] for a few more hours when he’d work on charts or other administrative tasks. Then he’d get something to eat, work on more charts, then go to bed, get up in the morning, and repeat.”

Mr. Hursh summarized the client’s life: “Eating, sleeping, practicing clinical medicine, and doing nonclinical tasks.”

It turned out that the 40-hour workweek included in the contract referred to patient-facing hours, not to all of the ancillary tasks that are part of practicing medicine in this day and age. “Unfortunately, this is far from an isolated story,” said Mr. Hursh.
 

Be aware of what’s in the contract

“The first draft of many standard physician employment contracts often omits mention of patient contact hour requirements and rather uses vague verbiage such as ‘full-time’ employment or ‘1.0 FTE’ – or full-time equivalent – without defining that term,” said Mr. Hursh. Typically, the 40 hours exclude call coverage, but most physicians understand that and, at least at first glance, it all sounds very reasonable.

But once charting, hours on the phone, arguing with managed care companies, sending in prescriptions, administrative meetings, and other tasks are thrown in, the work hours expand dramatically. Moreover, if your employer doesn’t utilize hospitalists, you may be expected to “round” outside of the 40 hours, which can be particularly burdensome if the employer admits patients to multiple hospitals.

Amanda Hill, JD, owner of Hill Health Law based in Austin, Texas, told this news organization that this predicament isn’t unique to physicians. Exempt employees who don’t clock in and out are often expected to work overtime – that is, to “work as long as it takes to get the job done.” It can affect NPs, PAs, and many others in the health care space. But the number of tasks that fall upon a doctor’s shoulders and the fact that patients’ health and lives are at stake up the ante and make the situation far more difficult for doctors than for employees in other industries.

So it’s important to nail down precise terms in the contract and, if possible, negotiate for a more humane schedule by specifying how the working hours will be used.

“It’s true that a 1.0 FTE definition is too vague,” Ms. Hill said. “I’ve negotiated a lot of contracts where we nail down in writing that the in-office schedule equals 34 hours per week, so the physician is guaranteed an additional 6 hours for administrative time.”

Mr. Hursh usually asks for 32 hours of patient contact per week, which leaves 1 full day per week to catch up on basic administrative tasks. “It’s important for employers to recognize that seeing patients isn’t the only thing a doctor does and there’s a lot of work in addition to face-to-face time,” he said.

But he hasn’t always been successful. One physician client was seeking a workweek consisting of 36 patient contact hours, “which is 90% of the usual FTE of a 40-hour week,” said Mr. Hursh. “But the employer called it ‘part-time,’ as if the doctor were planning to be lying in the sun for the other 4 hours.”

The client decided to accept a 10% pay cut and 10% less vacation to guarantee that she had those extra hours for administrative tasks. “She’s probably working way more than 36 hours a week, but maybe closer to 50 or 60 instead of 70 or more,” he said.
 

Clarify call coverage

Call coverage is typically not included in the hours a physician is contracted to work on a weekly basis. “Most contracts have call, and it’s usually evenly distributed among parties in a practice, but call can expand if another doctor is out sick, for example,” said Ms. Hill.

Sometimes the language in the contract is vague regarding call coverage. “I ask, how many shifts per year is the doctor is expected to work? Then, I try to negotiate extra pay if more shifts arise,” she said. “The hospital or practice may not demand extra call because they don’t want to pay extra money to the physician.”

On the other hand, some physicians may be eager to take extra call if it means extra income.

Ms. Hill stated that one of her clients was being paid as a “part-time, 2-day-a-week provider” but was asked to be on call and take night and weekend work. When you added it all up, she was putting in almost 30 hours a week.

“This is abusive to a provider that works so hard for patients,” Ms. Hill said. “We have to protect them through the contract language, so they have something hard and fast to point to when their administrator pushes them too hard. Doctors should get value for their time.”

Ms. Hill and her client pushed for more money, and the employer gave in. “All we had to do was to point out how many hours she was actually working. She didn’t mind all the extra call, but she wanted to be compensated.” The doctor’s salary was hiked by $25,000.
 

Differences in specialties and settings

There are some specialties where it might be easier to have more defined hours, while other specialties are more challenging. Anu Murthy, Esq., an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics (a national firm that reviews physician contracts) told this news organization that the work of hospitalists, intensivists, and emergency department physicians, for example, is done in shifts, which tend to be fixed hours.

“They need to get their charting completed so that whoever takes over on the next shift has access to the most recent notes about the patient,” she said. By contrast, surgeons can’t always account for how long a given surgery will take. “It could be as long as 9 hours,” she said. Notes need to be written immediately for the sake of the patient’s postsurgical care.

Dermatologists tend to deal with fewer emergencies, compared with other specialists, and it’s easier for their patients to be slotted into an organized schedule. On the other hand, primary care doctors – internists, family practice physicians, and pediatricians – may be seeing 40-50 patients a day, one every 15 minutes.

Practice setting also makes a difference, said Ms. Murthy. Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals or government-run clinics tend to have more rigidly defined hours, compared with other settings, so if you’re in a VA hospital or government-run clinic, work-life balance tends to be better.

Physicians who work remotely via telehealth also tend to have a better work-life balance, compared with those who see patients in person, Ms. Murthy said. But the difference may be in not having to spend extra time commuting to work or interacting with others in the work environment, since some research has suggested that telehealth physicians may actually spend more time engaged in charting after hours, compared with their in-person counterparts.
 

Using scribes to maximize your time

Elliott Trotter, MD, is an emergency medicine physician, associate clinical professor of emergency medicine at Texas Christian University Medical Schools, and founder of the ScribeNest, a Texas-based company that trains health care scribes. He told this news organization that there are ways to maximize one’s time during shifts so that much of the charting can be accomplished during working hours.

“About 28 years ago, I realized that the documentation load for physicians was enormous and at that time I developed the Modern Scribe, using premed students for ‘elbow support’ to help with the workload by documenting the ED encounters in real time during the encounter so I wouldn’t have to do so later.”

Over the years, as EHRs have become more ubiquitous and onerous, the role of the scribe has “evolved from a luxury to a necessity,” said Dr. Trotter. The scribes can actually record the encounter directly into the EHR so that the physician doesn’t have to do so later and doesn’t have to look at a computer screen but can look at the patient during the encounter.

“This enhances communication and has been shown to improve patient care,” he said.

Dr. Trotter said he rarely, if ever, needs to do documentation after hours. “But one of my physician colleagues had over 500 charts in his in-basket on a regular basis, which was overwhelming and untenable.”

The use of AI in health care is rapidly growing. Tools to help hasten the process of taking notes through use of AI-generated summaries is something appealing to many doctors. Ms. Hill warned physicians to “be careful not to rely so heavily on AI that you trust it over your own words.” She noted that it can make mistakes, and the liability always remains with the clinician.
 

Creating time-efficient strategies

Wilfrid Noel Raby, PhD, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Teaneck, N.J., was formerly a psychiatrist in the substance abuse unit at Montefiore Hospital, New York. He told this news organization that he developed a system whereby he rarely had to take work home with him. “I was working only 20 hours a week, but I was usually able to do my charting during those hours, as well as seeing patients,” he said. “I scheduled my appointments and structured a little ‘buffer time’ between them so that I had time to document the first appointment before moving on to the next one.”

There were days when this wasn’t possible because there were too many patients who needed to be seen back-to-back. “So I developed my own template where I could take rapid, very standardized notes that fit into the format of the EHR and met those expectations.” Then, when he had finished seeing patients, he could quickly enter the content of his notes into the EHR. If necessary, he completed his charting on a different day.

Viwek Bisen, DO, assistant professor of psychiatry, Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, is a psychiatrist in the emergency department. “My contract is based on a traditional 40-hour workweek, with 80% of my time allotted to seeing patients and 20% of my time allotted to administration.”

But the way his time actually plays out is that he’s seeing patients during about half of the 32 hours. “The rest of the time, I’m charting, speaking to family members of patients, writing notes, engaging in team meetings, and dealing with insurance companies.” Dr. Bisen has developed his own system of completing his notes while still in the hospital. “I’ve learned to be efficient and manage my time better, so I no longer have to take work home with me.”

“At the end of the day, doctors are people,” Ms. Hill said. “They are not machines. Maybe in residency and fellowship they may grind out impossible shifts with little sleep, but this pace isn’t tenable for an entire career.”

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) has declined over the past 2 decades, but 1 in 17 Americans still have a level of 160-189 mg/dL, and 1 in 48 have a level of at least 190 mg/dL, new research shows. Among people with the higher LDL-C level, one in four are both unaware and untreated, the authors report.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using data on 23,667 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted from 1999 to 2020, researchers identified 1,851 (7.8%) with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL and 669 (2.8%) with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL.
• Individuals were classified as “unaware” if they had never had their LDL-C measured or had never been informed of having elevated LDL-C and as “untreated” if their medications didn’t include a statin, ezetimibe, a bile acid sequestrant, or a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.
• The authors compared the prevalence of “unaware” and “untreated” by age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, poverty index, and insurance status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, the age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL declined from 12.4% (95% confidence interval, 10.0%-15.3%), representing 21.5 million U.S. adults, to 6.1% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.6%), representing 14.0 million adults (P < .001).
• The age-adjusted prevalence of an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL declined from 3.8% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%), representing 6.6 million adults, to 2.1% (95% CI, 1.4%-3.0%), representing 4.8 million adults (P = .001).
• Among those with an LDL-C level of 160-189 mg/dL, the proportion of who were unaware and untreated declined from 52.1% to 42.7%, and among those with an LDL-C level of at least 190 mg/dL, it declined from 40.8% to 26.8%.
• Being unaware and untreated was more common in younger adults, men, racial and ethnic minority groups, those with lower educational attainment, those with lower income, and those without health insurance.

IN PRACTICE:

The lack of awareness and treatment of high LDL-C uncovered by the study “may be due to difficulties accessing primary care, low rates of screening in primary care, lack of consensus on screening recommendations, insufficient emphasis on LDL-C as a quality measure, and hesitance to treat asymptomatic individuals,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Ahmed Sayed, MBBS, faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by a small number of participants with LDL-C levels of at least 190 mg/dL, possible nonresponse bias, and dependency on participant recall of whether LDL-C was previously measured. The inclusion of pregnant women may have influenced LDL-C levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Sayed has no relevant conflict of interest. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the original publication.

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

Phytoestrogens show potential as a treatment for menopausal women with late-onset asthma that may relieve symptoms of both conditions, according to a new review.

Fluctuations in female sex steroid hormones during menstrual periods have been linked to asthma exacerbations, and the absence of these hormones during childhood and menopause has been associated with fewer and less severe asthma episodes, wrote Bettina Sommer, PhD, of the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Mexico City, and colleagues.

Late-onset asthma (LOA) has been categorized as a specific asthmatic phenotype that includes menopausal women, and research is needed to explore therapeutic alternatives that might provide relief to older women suffering from LOA, they said.

In a review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, the researchers outlined the potential of phytoestrogens to manage LOA as well as symptoms of menopause.

LOA is often nonatopic and distinguished by a lack of eosinophilic inflammation; it is also associated with obesity and pollutants such as cigarette smoke. LOA is more common in women versus men, and develops between ages 27 and 65 years, the researchers wrote. Very late-onset asthma, which develops in women aged 65 years and older, is related to low levels of total lack of circulating estrogens.

Previous studies have shown that hormone therapy reduces the risk of LOA in menopausal women, but concerns about side effects persist. Phytochemicals offer a low-risk alternative, but phytoestrogen-based hormone therapy and its role in LOA have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

Estrogen receptors (ERs) have two intracellular isoforms, alpha and beta. “Notably, the literature sustains that ERs expression differs between asthmatics and nonasthmatics,” and mainly the beta ERs are up-regulated in asthma or during inflammations, the researchers said. Phytoestrogens activate ER and benefit postmenopausal women, especially those with asthma, in addition to their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

Studies using mouse models have shown that E2 phytoestrogen supplementation in mice both increases the expression of antioxidant enzymes and reduces inflammation, according to the researchers. Age-related changes in hormonal statues, immunology, and systemic inflammation may predispose older adults to more infections and asthma exacerbations, but also might drive the development of LOA.

As another example of potential connections between phytoestrogen and asthma, phytoestrogen’s action on an estrogen receptor, notably the beta-ER, was associated with lowered airway hyperresponsiveness in a mouse model, and beta-ER knockout mice showed reduced lung function, compared with wild-type and alpha-ER knockout mice.

More research is needed, but novel therapies using phytoestrogens offer an added advantage to older women with LOA by potentially easing some menopause symptoms with fewer side effects than other options, the researchers wrote. “They may also contribute to more efficient responses to infection and inflammation leading menopausal women to a much better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica, and the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Phytoestrogens show potential as a treatment for menopausal women with late-onset asthma that may relieve symptoms of both conditions, according to a new review.

Fluctuations in female sex steroid hormones during menstrual periods have been linked to asthma exacerbations, and the absence of these hormones during childhood and menopause has been associated with fewer and less severe asthma episodes, wrote Bettina Sommer, PhD, of the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Mexico City, and colleagues.

Late-onset asthma (LOA) has been categorized as a specific asthmatic phenotype that includes menopausal women, and research is needed to explore therapeutic alternatives that might provide relief to older women suffering from LOA, they said.

In a review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, the researchers outlined the potential of phytoestrogens to manage LOA as well as symptoms of menopause.

LOA is often nonatopic and distinguished by a lack of eosinophilic inflammation; it is also associated with obesity and pollutants such as cigarette smoke. LOA is more common in women versus men, and develops between ages 27 and 65 years, the researchers wrote. Very late-onset asthma, which develops in women aged 65 years and older, is related to low levels of total lack of circulating estrogens.

Previous studies have shown that hormone therapy reduces the risk of LOA in menopausal women, but concerns about side effects persist. Phytochemicals offer a low-risk alternative, but phytoestrogen-based hormone therapy and its role in LOA have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

Estrogen receptors (ERs) have two intracellular isoforms, alpha and beta. “Notably, the literature sustains that ERs expression differs between asthmatics and nonasthmatics,” and mainly the beta ERs are up-regulated in asthma or during inflammations, the researchers said. Phytoestrogens activate ER and benefit postmenopausal women, especially those with asthma, in addition to their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

Studies using mouse models have shown that E2 phytoestrogen supplementation in mice both increases the expression of antioxidant enzymes and reduces inflammation, according to the researchers. Age-related changes in hormonal statues, immunology, and systemic inflammation may predispose older adults to more infections and asthma exacerbations, but also might drive the development of LOA.

As another example of potential connections between phytoestrogen and asthma, phytoestrogen’s action on an estrogen receptor, notably the beta-ER, was associated with lowered airway hyperresponsiveness in a mouse model, and beta-ER knockout mice showed reduced lung function, compared with wild-type and alpha-ER knockout mice.

More research is needed, but novel therapies using phytoestrogens offer an added advantage to older women with LOA by potentially easing some menopause symptoms with fewer side effects than other options, the researchers wrote. “They may also contribute to more efficient responses to infection and inflammation leading menopausal women to a much better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica, and the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Phytoestrogens show potential as a treatment for menopausal women with late-onset asthma that may relieve symptoms of both conditions, according to a new review.

Fluctuations in female sex steroid hormones during menstrual periods have been linked to asthma exacerbations, and the absence of these hormones during childhood and menopause has been associated with fewer and less severe asthma episodes, wrote Bettina Sommer, PhD, of the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Mexico City, and colleagues.

Late-onset asthma (LOA) has been categorized as a specific asthmatic phenotype that includes menopausal women, and research is needed to explore therapeutic alternatives that might provide relief to older women suffering from LOA, they said.

In a review published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, the researchers outlined the potential of phytoestrogens to manage LOA as well as symptoms of menopause.

LOA is often nonatopic and distinguished by a lack of eosinophilic inflammation; it is also associated with obesity and pollutants such as cigarette smoke. LOA is more common in women versus men, and develops between ages 27 and 65 years, the researchers wrote. Very late-onset asthma, which develops in women aged 65 years and older, is related to low levels of total lack of circulating estrogens.

Previous studies have shown that hormone therapy reduces the risk of LOA in menopausal women, but concerns about side effects persist. Phytochemicals offer a low-risk alternative, but phytoestrogen-based hormone therapy and its role in LOA have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

Estrogen receptors (ERs) have two intracellular isoforms, alpha and beta. “Notably, the literature sustains that ERs expression differs between asthmatics and nonasthmatics,” and mainly the beta ERs are up-regulated in asthma or during inflammations, the researchers said. Phytoestrogens activate ER and benefit postmenopausal women, especially those with asthma, in addition to their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

Studies using mouse models have shown that E2 phytoestrogen supplementation in mice both increases the expression of antioxidant enzymes and reduces inflammation, according to the researchers. Age-related changes in hormonal statues, immunology, and systemic inflammation may predispose older adults to more infections and asthma exacerbations, but also might drive the development of LOA.

As another example of potential connections between phytoestrogen and asthma, phytoestrogen’s action on an estrogen receptor, notably the beta-ER, was associated with lowered airway hyperresponsiveness in a mouse model, and beta-ER knockout mice showed reduced lung function, compared with wild-type and alpha-ER knockout mice.

More research is needed, but novel therapies using phytoestrogens offer an added advantage to older women with LOA by potentially easing some menopause symptoms with fewer side effects than other options, the researchers wrote. “They may also contribute to more efficient responses to infection and inflammation leading menopausal women to a much better quality of life.”

The study was funded by the Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica, and the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

TOPLINE:

The addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to usual care does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol (MHP).

METHODOLOGY:

• CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study.
• A total of 1,604 patients were enrolled from 25 major trauma centers in the United Kingdom (n = 1,555) and 1 in the United States (n = 49) between August 2017 and November 2021.
• A total of 805 patients were randomly assigned to receive the standard MHP (standard care), and 799 were randomly assigned to receive an additional three pools of cryoprecipitate.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Addition of early cryoprecipitate versus standard care did not improve all-cause 28-day mortality in the intent-to-treat population (25.3% vs. 26.1%; P = .74).
• In patient subgroup with penetrating trauma, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the cryoprecipitate group than in the standard care group (16.2% vs. 10.0%; odds ratio, 1.74; P = .006).
• Massive transfusion (RBC ≥ 10 U) was similar between the cryoprecipitate and standard care groups.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, it is possible that certain patients may have benefited from cryoprecipitate, but they did not receive it promptly or in adequate doses to restore functional fibrinogen levels. Despite the study’s goal of early cryoprecipitate administration, the median time to the first transfusion exceeded 1 hour after the patient’s arrival, which highlights the logistical challenges of preparing and delivering a frozen blood component from a distant blood laboratory to the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ross Davenport, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues, was published in JAMA).

LIMITATIONS:

There was variability of timing of cryoprecipitate administration and an overlap with patients in the standard care group receiving the intervention as part of their usual MHP treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research: Health Technology Assessment and Barts Charity, U.K.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to usual care does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol (MHP).

METHODOLOGY:

• CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study.
• A total of 1,604 patients were enrolled from 25 major trauma centers in the United Kingdom (n = 1,555) and 1 in the United States (n = 49) between August 2017 and November 2021.
• A total of 805 patients were randomly assigned to receive the standard MHP (standard care), and 799 were randomly assigned to receive an additional three pools of cryoprecipitate.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Addition of early cryoprecipitate versus standard care did not improve all-cause 28-day mortality in the intent-to-treat population (25.3% vs. 26.1%; P = .74).
• In patient subgroup with penetrating trauma, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the cryoprecipitate group than in the standard care group (16.2% vs. 10.0%; odds ratio, 1.74; P = .006).
• Massive transfusion (RBC ≥ 10 U) was similar between the cryoprecipitate and standard care groups.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, it is possible that certain patients may have benefited from cryoprecipitate, but they did not receive it promptly or in adequate doses to restore functional fibrinogen levels. Despite the study’s goal of early cryoprecipitate administration, the median time to the first transfusion exceeded 1 hour after the patient’s arrival, which highlights the logistical challenges of preparing and delivering a frozen blood component from a distant blood laboratory to the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ross Davenport, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues, was published in JAMA).

LIMITATIONS:

There was variability of timing of cryoprecipitate administration and an overlap with patients in the standard care group receiving the intervention as part of their usual MHP treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research: Health Technology Assessment and Barts Charity, U.K.

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

TOPLINE:

The addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to usual care does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol (MHP).

METHODOLOGY:

• CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study.
• A total of 1,604 patients were enrolled from 25 major trauma centers in the United Kingdom (n = 1,555) and 1 in the United States (n = 49) between August 2017 and November 2021.
• A total of 805 patients were randomly assigned to receive the standard MHP (standard care), and 799 were randomly assigned to receive an additional three pools of cryoprecipitate.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Addition of early cryoprecipitate versus standard care did not improve all-cause 28-day mortality in the intent-to-treat population (25.3% vs. 26.1%; P = .74).
• In patient subgroup with penetrating trauma, 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the cryoprecipitate group than in the standard care group (16.2% vs. 10.0%; odds ratio, 1.74; P = .006).
• Massive transfusion (RBC ≥ 10 U) was similar between the cryoprecipitate and standard care groups.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, it is possible that certain patients may have benefited from cryoprecipitate, but they did not receive it promptly or in adequate doses to restore functional fibrinogen levels. Despite the study’s goal of early cryoprecipitate administration, the median time to the first transfusion exceeded 1 hour after the patient’s arrival, which highlights the logistical challenges of preparing and delivering a frozen blood component from a distant blood laboratory to the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ross Davenport, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues, was published in JAMA).

LIMITATIONS:

There was variability of timing of cryoprecipitate administration and an overlap with patients in the standard care group receiving the intervention as part of their usual MHP treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research: Health Technology Assessment and Barts Charity, U.K.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For the treatment of coronary artery in-stent restenosis, angioplasty with a drug-coated balloon (AGENT DCB; Boston Scientific) was superior to conventional balloon angioplasty in preventing target lesion failure at 1 year in a high-risk patient population.

Approximate 50% reductions in the rates of target lesion restenosis and target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) accounted for the superior findings with the AGENT DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty.

“For those patients treated with a balloon angioplasty, the rate of target lesion failure was 28.7%. Those treated with the AGENT paclitaxel-coated balloon had a net rate of 17.9%,” Robert Yeh, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston reported at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics congress. “This represented a 38% relative risk reduction as well as a 10% absolute risk reduction in the endpoint. The P value for superiority was 0.0063, highly statistically significant.”

In-stent restenosis is clinically challenging and accounts for about 10% of all percutaneous coronary interventions. “Sometimes these patients have multiple layers, and that could be a third or fourth layer of stent, something that we try to avoid,” he said.

Drug-coated balloons, which are not currently approved in the United States, can deliver drugs that inhibit blockages from reforming, “without leaving additional layers of metal behind,” he added. Such devices are already available in Europe and Japan.

AGENT IDE was a prospective, multicenter, superiority trial that randomly assigned 480 patients 2:1 to the AGENT DCB (n = 321) or to conventional balloon angioplasty (n = 159). Randomization occurred after successful pre-dilation of the target vessel.

The trial included patients with in-stent restenosis previously treated with a bare metal or a drug-eluting stent with lesion lengths < 26 mm (reference vessel diameter: > 2 mm to ≤ 4), and percent diameter stenosis of more than 70% if they were asymptomatic or of more than 50% if they were symptomatic. Patients were excluded if they had a recent ST-elevation MI, bifurcation, saphenous vein or arterial graft, or thrombus in the target vessel.

All received dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 1 month and then antiplatelet monotherapy for the duration of the trial. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of target lesion restenosis, target vessel-related MI, or cardiac death. More than 93% of patients in each arm were available for evaluation of the primary endpoint.

The two groups were well balanced at baseline: Approximate age was 68 years, 27% were women, and three quarters were White. Approximately 28%-32% had had a prior coronary artery bypass graft, 20%-22% had previous heart failure, and about 22% had a history of left main coronary artery disease. Half had diabetes, and about half had stable angina.

Multiple stent layers were common in 43% of each group. Stenosis diameter was about 65% at baseline for the two groups and was reduced to 22% post procedure.
 

Outcomes all favored AGENT DCB

In the AGENT DCB group, the technical success rate was 92.9% vs 89.3% for balloon angioplasty. Intravascular imaging was used during the procedure in 72.3% of DCB cases and in 76.7% of balloon cases.

Besides demonstrating a nearly 38% reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure at 1 year for the DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty, DCB nearly halved the rate of target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI and was superior on other measures of clinical outcome.

Long overdue

Róisín Colleran, MBBCh, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin at Mater Private Hospital in Ireland, the designated discussant, first congratulated Dr. Yeh and his coinvestigators on the study’s conduct and findings.

“This study is long overdue,” she said. As Dr. Yeh noted, about 10% of PCI procedures are done for in-stent restenosis, Dr. Colleran said, but in 2023, there is still no coronary drug eluting balloon approved for this indication in the US, despite the class 1 recommendation in the 2014 European guidelines.

She pointed to the trial results, saying they are “clear...a significant reduction in target lesion failure driven by halving in rates of both target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI.”

Strengths of the study are it is the largest of its kind to date, with 480 patients, conducted at 40 US centers, using device-specific endpoints. There was a “very high” intravascular imaging rate of 75% in a cohort with a high risk for in-stent restenosis, consisting of 50% of patients with diabetes and more than 40% with multiple stents.

“The main limitation is the choice of comparator,” Dr. Colleran said. Balloon angioplasty is inferior to both stenting and drug coated balloon therapy for treatment of in-stent restenosis but is the standard of care in the United States, she noted. “I think...for regulatory reasons this was the comparator chosen,” she said.

“I think the implications are clear,” Dr. Colleran added. “This trial should provide a basis for regulatory approval of the drug coated balloon treatment of in-stent restenosis in the U.S. and finally provide this as an available treatment option for such patients.”

Dr. Yeh reported receiving grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, BD Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Philips Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, Elixir Medical, Infraredx, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical, and Zol. Dr. Colleran had no disclosures. The trial was supported by Boston Scientific.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For the treatment of coronary artery in-stent restenosis, angioplasty with a drug-coated balloon (AGENT DCB; Boston Scientific) was superior to conventional balloon angioplasty in preventing target lesion failure at 1 year in a high-risk patient population.

Approximate 50% reductions in the rates of target lesion restenosis and target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) accounted for the superior findings with the AGENT DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty.

“For those patients treated with a balloon angioplasty, the rate of target lesion failure was 28.7%. Those treated with the AGENT paclitaxel-coated balloon had a net rate of 17.9%,” Robert Yeh, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston reported at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics congress. “This represented a 38% relative risk reduction as well as a 10% absolute risk reduction in the endpoint. The P value for superiority was 0.0063, highly statistically significant.”

In-stent restenosis is clinically challenging and accounts for about 10% of all percutaneous coronary interventions. “Sometimes these patients have multiple layers, and that could be a third or fourth layer of stent, something that we try to avoid,” he said.

Drug-coated balloons, which are not currently approved in the United States, can deliver drugs that inhibit blockages from reforming, “without leaving additional layers of metal behind,” he added. Such devices are already available in Europe and Japan.

AGENT IDE was a prospective, multicenter, superiority trial that randomly assigned 480 patients 2:1 to the AGENT DCB (n = 321) or to conventional balloon angioplasty (n = 159). Randomization occurred after successful pre-dilation of the target vessel.

The trial included patients with in-stent restenosis previously treated with a bare metal or a drug-eluting stent with lesion lengths < 26 mm (reference vessel diameter: > 2 mm to ≤ 4), and percent diameter stenosis of more than 70% if they were asymptomatic or of more than 50% if they were symptomatic. Patients were excluded if they had a recent ST-elevation MI, bifurcation, saphenous vein or arterial graft, or thrombus in the target vessel.

All received dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 1 month and then antiplatelet monotherapy for the duration of the trial. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of target lesion restenosis, target vessel-related MI, or cardiac death. More than 93% of patients in each arm were available for evaluation of the primary endpoint.

The two groups were well balanced at baseline: Approximate age was 68 years, 27% were women, and three quarters were White. Approximately 28%-32% had had a prior coronary artery bypass graft, 20%-22% had previous heart failure, and about 22% had a history of left main coronary artery disease. Half had diabetes, and about half had stable angina.

Multiple stent layers were common in 43% of each group. Stenosis diameter was about 65% at baseline for the two groups and was reduced to 22% post procedure.
 

Outcomes all favored AGENT DCB

In the AGENT DCB group, the technical success rate was 92.9% vs 89.3% for balloon angioplasty. Intravascular imaging was used during the procedure in 72.3% of DCB cases and in 76.7% of balloon cases.

Besides demonstrating a nearly 38% reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure at 1 year for the DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty, DCB nearly halved the rate of target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI and was superior on other measures of clinical outcome.

Long overdue

Róisín Colleran, MBBCh, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin at Mater Private Hospital in Ireland, the designated discussant, first congratulated Dr. Yeh and his coinvestigators on the study’s conduct and findings.

“This study is long overdue,” she said. As Dr. Yeh noted, about 10% of PCI procedures are done for in-stent restenosis, Dr. Colleran said, but in 2023, there is still no coronary drug eluting balloon approved for this indication in the US, despite the class 1 recommendation in the 2014 European guidelines.

She pointed to the trial results, saying they are “clear...a significant reduction in target lesion failure driven by halving in rates of both target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI.”

Strengths of the study are it is the largest of its kind to date, with 480 patients, conducted at 40 US centers, using device-specific endpoints. There was a “very high” intravascular imaging rate of 75% in a cohort with a high risk for in-stent restenosis, consisting of 50% of patients with diabetes and more than 40% with multiple stents.

“The main limitation is the choice of comparator,” Dr. Colleran said. Balloon angioplasty is inferior to both stenting and drug coated balloon therapy for treatment of in-stent restenosis but is the standard of care in the United States, she noted. “I think...for regulatory reasons this was the comparator chosen,” she said.

“I think the implications are clear,” Dr. Colleran added. “This trial should provide a basis for regulatory approval of the drug coated balloon treatment of in-stent restenosis in the U.S. and finally provide this as an available treatment option for such patients.”

Dr. Yeh reported receiving grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, BD Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Philips Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, Elixir Medical, Infraredx, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical, and Zol. Dr. Colleran had no disclosures. The trial was supported by Boston Scientific.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For the treatment of coronary artery in-stent restenosis, angioplasty with a drug-coated balloon (AGENT DCB; Boston Scientific) was superior to conventional balloon angioplasty in preventing target lesion failure at 1 year in a high-risk patient population.

Approximate 50% reductions in the rates of target lesion restenosis and target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) accounted for the superior findings with the AGENT DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty.

“For those patients treated with a balloon angioplasty, the rate of target lesion failure was 28.7%. Those treated with the AGENT paclitaxel-coated balloon had a net rate of 17.9%,” Robert Yeh, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston reported at the annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics congress. “This represented a 38% relative risk reduction as well as a 10% absolute risk reduction in the endpoint. The P value for superiority was 0.0063, highly statistically significant.”

In-stent restenosis is clinically challenging and accounts for about 10% of all percutaneous coronary interventions. “Sometimes these patients have multiple layers, and that could be a third or fourth layer of stent, something that we try to avoid,” he said.

Drug-coated balloons, which are not currently approved in the United States, can deliver drugs that inhibit blockages from reforming, “without leaving additional layers of metal behind,” he added. Such devices are already available in Europe and Japan.

AGENT IDE was a prospective, multicenter, superiority trial that randomly assigned 480 patients 2:1 to the AGENT DCB (n = 321) or to conventional balloon angioplasty (n = 159). Randomization occurred after successful pre-dilation of the target vessel.

The trial included patients with in-stent restenosis previously treated with a bare metal or a drug-eluting stent with lesion lengths < 26 mm (reference vessel diameter: > 2 mm to ≤ 4), and percent diameter stenosis of more than 70% if they were asymptomatic or of more than 50% if they were symptomatic. Patients were excluded if they had a recent ST-elevation MI, bifurcation, saphenous vein or arterial graft, or thrombus in the target vessel.

All received dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 1 month and then antiplatelet monotherapy for the duration of the trial. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure at 1 year, a composite of target lesion restenosis, target vessel-related MI, or cardiac death. More than 93% of patients in each arm were available for evaluation of the primary endpoint.

The two groups were well balanced at baseline: Approximate age was 68 years, 27% were women, and three quarters were White. Approximately 28%-32% had had a prior coronary artery bypass graft, 20%-22% had previous heart failure, and about 22% had a history of left main coronary artery disease. Half had diabetes, and about half had stable angina.

Multiple stent layers were common in 43% of each group. Stenosis diameter was about 65% at baseline for the two groups and was reduced to 22% post procedure.
 

Outcomes all favored AGENT DCB

In the AGENT DCB group, the technical success rate was 92.9% vs 89.3% for balloon angioplasty. Intravascular imaging was used during the procedure in 72.3% of DCB cases and in 76.7% of balloon cases.

Besides demonstrating a nearly 38% reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure at 1 year for the DCB over conventional balloon angioplasty, DCB nearly halved the rate of target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI and was superior on other measures of clinical outcome.

Long overdue

Róisín Colleran, MBBCh, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin at Mater Private Hospital in Ireland, the designated discussant, first congratulated Dr. Yeh and his coinvestigators on the study’s conduct and findings.

“This study is long overdue,” she said. As Dr. Yeh noted, about 10% of PCI procedures are done for in-stent restenosis, Dr. Colleran said, but in 2023, there is still no coronary drug eluting balloon approved for this indication in the US, despite the class 1 recommendation in the 2014 European guidelines.

She pointed to the trial results, saying they are “clear...a significant reduction in target lesion failure driven by halving in rates of both target lesion revascularization and target vessel MI.”

Strengths of the study are it is the largest of its kind to date, with 480 patients, conducted at 40 US centers, using device-specific endpoints. There was a “very high” intravascular imaging rate of 75% in a cohort with a high risk for in-stent restenosis, consisting of 50% of patients with diabetes and more than 40% with multiple stents.

“The main limitation is the choice of comparator,” Dr. Colleran said. Balloon angioplasty is inferior to both stenting and drug coated balloon therapy for treatment of in-stent restenosis but is the standard of care in the United States, she noted. “I think...for regulatory reasons this was the comparator chosen,” she said.

“I think the implications are clear,” Dr. Colleran added. “This trial should provide a basis for regulatory approval of the drug coated balloon treatment of in-stent restenosis in the U.S. and finally provide this as an available treatment option for such patients.”

Dr. Yeh reported receiving grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, BD Bard, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Philips Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, Elixir Medical, Infraredx, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical, and Zol. Dr. Colleran had no disclosures. The trial was supported by Boston Scientific.

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

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.