Ob.Gyn. News

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Small airway disease with air trapping appears to be a long-lasting sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a prospective study that compared 100 COVID-19 survivors who had persistent symptoms and 106 healthy control persons.

“Something is going on in the distal airways related to either inflammation or fibrosis that is giving us a signal of air trapping,” noted senior author Alejandro P. Comellas, MD, in a press release. The study was stimulated by reports from University of Iowa clinicians noting that many patients with initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were either hospitalized or were treated in the ambulatory setting later reported shortness of breath and other respiratory symptoms indicative of chronic lung disease.

Study results

Investigators classified patients (mean age, 48 years; 66 women) with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 according to whether they were ambulatory (67%), hospitalized (17%), or required treatment in the intensive care unit (16%). They then compared CT findings of patients who had COVID-19 and persistent symptoms with those of a healthy control group.

COVID-19 severity did not affect the percentage of cases of lung with air trapping among these patients. Air trapping occurred at rates of 25.4% among ambulatory patients, 34.6% in hospitalized patients, and in 27.3% of those requiring intensive care (P = .10). The percentage of lungs affected by air trapping in ambulatory participants was sharply and significantly higher than in healthy controls (25.4% vs. 7.2%; P < .001). Also, air trapping persisted; it was still present in 8 of 9 participants who underwent imaging more than 200 days post diagnosis.

Qualitative analysis of chest CT images showed that the most common imaging abnormality was air trapping (58%); ground glass opacities (GGOs) were found in 51% (46/91), note Dr. Comellas and coauthors. This suggests ongoing lung inflammation, edema, or fibrosis. These symptoms are often observed during acute COVID-19, frequently in an organizing pneumonia pattern, and have been shown to persist for months after infection in survivors of severe disease. The mean percentage of total lung classified as having regional GGOs on chest CT scans was 13.2% and 28.7%, respectively, in the hospitalized and ICU groups, both very much higher than in the ambulatory group, at 3.7% (P < .001 for both). Among healthy controls, the GGO rate on chest CT was only 0.06% (P < .001).

In addition, air trapping correlated with the ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (r = 0.6; P < .001) but not with spirometry results. In fact, the investigators did not observe airflow obstruction by spirometry in any group, suggesting that air trapping in these patients involves only small rather than large airways and that these small airways contribute little to total airway resistance. Only when a large percentage, perhaps 75% or more, of all small airways are obstructed will spirometry pick up small airways disease, the authors observe.

Continuing disease

The findings taken together suggest that functional small airways disease and air trapping are a consequence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to Dr. Comellas. “If a portion of patients continues to have small airways disease, then we need to think about the mechanisms behind it,” he said. “It could be something related to inflammation that’s reversible, or it may be something related to a scar that is irreversible, and then we need to look at ways to prevent further progression of the disease.” Furthermore, “studies aimed at determining the natural history of functional small airways disease in patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 and the biological mechanisms that underlie these findings are urgently needed to identify therapeutic and preventative interventions,” Dr. Comellas, professor of internal medicine at Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, concluded.

The study limitations, the authors state, include the fact that theirs was a single-center study that enrolled participants infected early during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not include patients with Delta or Omicron variants, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.

The study was published in Radiology.

The reported findings “indicate a long-term impact on bronchiolar obstruction,” states Brett M. Elicker, MD, professor of clinical radiology, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial . Because collagen may be absorbed for months after an acute insult, it is not entirely clear whether the abnormalities seen in the current study will be permanent. He said further, “the presence of ground glass opacity and/or fibrosis on CT were most common in the patients admitted to the ICU and likely correspond to post-organizing pneumonia and/or post-diffuse alveolar damage fibrosis.”

Dr. Elicker also pointed out that organizing pneumonia is especially common among patients with COVID-19 and is usually highly steroid-responsive. The opacities improve or resolve with treatment, but sometimes residual fibrosis occurs. “Longer-term studies assessing the clinical and imaging manifestations 1-2 years after the initial infection are needed to fully ascertain the permanent manifestations of post-COVID fibrosis.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Elicker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new report shows considerable gaps in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in premenopausal women in the United States, with a key driver being regular access to health care.

In a nationally representative sample of women ages 35-54 with no prior cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of hypertension increased 8% from an estimated 15.2 million women between 2011 and 2014 to 16.4 million women between 2015 and 2018.

What’s more, the percentage of women with controlled hypertension dropped over the two time periods from 55% to 50%, which is well below the government’s Million Hearts target of 70%.

Missed opportunities for hypertension control in these premenopausal women were a lack of awareness of their hypertension in 23%, ineffective treatment in 34%, and a lack of health care access in 43%; increasing to 51% in non-Hispanic Black patients and 56% in Hispanic patients.

Notably, lack of health care access affected an estimated 3.1 million women (45%) in 2011-2014 and 3.5 million women (43%) in 2015-2018.

Equally stubborn over the two time periods was the lack of effective treatment, affecting 2.1 million (31%) versus 2.8 million (34%) women, and lack of awareness, affecting 1.6 million (24%) versus 1.9 million (23%) women.

“There’s been no improvement over the past decade, and there is evidence of race/ethnic disparities,” study author Susan Hennessy, PhD, said at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health (EPI|Lifestyle) 2022 conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension among non-Hispanic Whites was less than that of the U.S. population, at 44%, and most of the missed opportunities were due to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), noted Dr. Hennessy, a researcher with the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

However, the uncontrolled prevalence was 54% in non-Hispanic Black women and 66% in Hispanic women. “In both of these subgroups, over half of the missed opportunities occur because these women have no regular access to health care,” she said.

In women who identified as “other,” which includes non-Hispanic Asian and mixed-race populations, the uncontrolled prevalence reached 70%, and the biggest missed opportunity was in those who were untreated.

Raising awareness, empowering women, and delivery of guideline-concordant care will help premenopausal women gain control of their blood pressure, Dr. Hennessy said. “But underpinning all of this is ensuring equitable health care access, because if we fail to get women into the system, then we have no opportunity to help them lower their blood pressure.”

She reminded the audience that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one killer of women in the United States and that CVD risk, mediated through hypertension, increases after menopause. Thus, managing hypertension prior to this life event is an important element of primary prevention of CVD and should be a priority.

Session moderator Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization that the findings should raise “alarm and concern that hypertension is not just a disease of the old but very prevalent in younger women, particularly around the time of pregnancy. And this is a clear driver of maternal morbidity and mortality as well.”

“This idea that patients should ‘Know Your Numbers’ is really important, and we talk a lot about that for hypertension, but if you don’t have a doctor, if you don’t have someone to go to, it’s very hard to know or understand what your numbers mean,” she said. “I think that’s really the main message.”

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Hennessy said there’s no simple solution to the problem, given that some women are not even in the system, whereas others are not being treated effectively, but that increasing opportunities to screen BP would be a start. That could be through community programs, similar to the Barbershop Hypertension trial, or by making BP devices available for home monitoring.

“Again, this is about empowering ourselves to take some level of control, but, as a system, we have to be able to make it equitable for everyone and make sure they have the right equipment, the right cuff size,” she said. “The disparities arise because of the social determinants of health, so if these women are struggling to put food on the table, they aren’t going to be able to afford a blood pressure cuff.”

During a discussion of the findings, audience members noted that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used for the analysis were somewhat dated. Dr. Hennessy also pointed out that NHANES blood pressure is measured up to three times during a single visit, which differs from clinical practice, and that responses were based on self-report and thus subject to recall bias.

The sample included 3,343 women aged 35-54 years with no prior cardiovascular disease, representing an estimated 31.6 million American women. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg or current BP medication use.

The authors and Dr. Khan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).

Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
 

Study details

They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.

Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.

This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.

Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.

Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.

The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
 

Substantial global health care problem

At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.

Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.

“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.

MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.

“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
 

Results could ‘support a change in practice’

In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”

They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.

However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”

In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”

References

Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.

Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).

Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
 

Study details

They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.

Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.

This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.

Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.

Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.

The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
 

Substantial global health care problem

At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.

Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.

“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.

MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.

“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
 

Results could ‘support a change in practice’

In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”

They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.

However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”

In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”

References

Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.

Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

The antiseptic methenamine hippurate (MH) is known to sterilize urine and has been suggested to be of use in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs), but firm evidence has so far been lacking. Now researchers led by clinicians and scientists from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, have provided the ALTAR trial (Alternative to Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Treatment of Recurrent UTIs in Women).

Daily low-dose antibiotics as recommended by current guidelines for prophylactic treatment of recurrent UTI have been linked to antibiotic resistance. Using MH as an alternative could play an important role in helping to tackle the global problem of increasing antibiotic resistance, the team said.
 

Study details

They recruited 240 women aged 18 or over with recurrent UTIs requiring prophylactic treatment from eight secondary care urology and urogynecology centers in the United Kingdom from June 2016 to June 2018. Women were randomized to receive MH or daily low-dose antibiotics for 12 months, with follow up for a further 6 months beyond that.

Before trial entry the women had experienced an average of more than six UTI episodes per year. During the 12-month treatment period, in the modified intention-to-treat population, there were 90 symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI episodes reported over 101 person-years of follow-up in the antibiotic group, and 141 episodes over 102 person-years in the MH group.

This yielded a UTI rate of 0.89 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic group, compared with 1.38 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.49 episodes per person-year. In the 6-month posttreatment follow-up period, the UTI incidence rate was 1.19 episodes per person-year in the antibiotic prophylaxis group versus 1.72 in the MH group, an absolute difference of 0.53.

Before the trial, a patient and public involvement group had predefined the noninferiority margin as one episode of UTI per person-year. The small difference between the two groups was less than this, confirming noninferiority of MH to antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. This finding was consistent across the modified intention-to-treat, strict intention-to-treat, per protocol, and modified per protocol (post hoc) analyses.

Thus the ALTAR results showed that MH was no worse than antibiotics at preventing UTIs, and MH was also associated with reduced antibiotic consumption.

The vast majority of participants were over 90% adherent with the allocated treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high and rates of adverse events and adverse reactions generally low, and both were comparable between treatment groups. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the MH group, and most reactions were mild. In the antibiotic group there were two serious adverse reactions (severe abdominal pain and raised alanine transaminase), whereas six participants in the MH group reported an episode of febrile UTI and four were admitted to hospital because of UTI.
 

Substantial global health care problem

At least 50% and up to 80% of all women have at least one acute UTI in their lifetime, most often uncomplicated acute cystitis. About a quarter of them go on to suffer recurrent infection, defined as three or more repeat infections in the past year, or two infections in the preceding 6 months. Frequent recurrences thus represent “a substantial global health care problem,” the authors say.

Guidelines from the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States acknowledge the need for preventive strategies and strongly recommend the use of daily, low-dose antibiotics as standard prophylactic treatment. However, the United Kingdom’s antimicrobial resistance strategy recommends a “strong focus on infection prevention,” and aims to reduce antimicrobial use in humans by 15% before 2024.

“To achieve that, exploration of nonantibiotic preventive treatments in common conditions such as UTI is essential,” the team said.

MH is one such nonantibiotic treatment. It is bactericidal and works by denaturing bacterial proteins and nucleic acids. Although previous Cochrane systematic reviews had concluded that it could be effective for preventing UTI, further large trials were needed.

“This trial adds to the evidence base for the use of MH for prophylactic treatment in adult women with recurrent UTI. Although the MH group had a 55% higher rate of UTI episodes than the antibiotics group, the absolute difference was just 0.49 UTI episodes per year, which has limited clinical consequence,” the team concluded.
 

Results could ‘support a change in practice’

In older patients, particularly, the risks of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis might outweigh the benefits, and the authors said that their results “could support a change in practice in terms of preventive treatments for recurrent UTI and provide patients and clinicians with a credible alternative to daily antibiotics, giving them the confidence to pursue strategies that avoid long-term antibiotic use.”

They acknowledged limitations of the study, including that treatment allocation was not masked, crossover between arms was allowed, and differences in antibiotics prescribed may have affected the results. In addition, data regarding long-term safety of MH are scarce.

However, they said that the trial accurately represented the broad range of women with recurrent UTI, and that its results “might encourage patients and clinicians to consider MH as a first line treatment for UTI prevention in women.”

In a linked editorial, scientists from the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, commented: “Although the results need cautious interpretation, they align with others, and this new research increases the confidence with which MH can be offered as an option to women needing prophylaxis against recurrent urinary tract infection.”

References

Harding C et al. Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, noninferiority trial. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:e068229.

Hoffmann TC et al. Methenamine hippurate for recurrent urinary tract infections. BMJ 2022 Mar 9;376:o533.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.