Pharmacology

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by airway and alveolar abnormalities and is the third most common cause of death worldwide. COPD results in airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. The diagnosis of COPD should be considered in patients over 40 years who have chronic cough and/or dyspnea, particularly if they have a history of tobacco use. The diagnosis is confirmed by a diminished forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) that is not fully reversible with the use of a bronchodilator and an FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.7.¹The American Thoracic Society released a guideline on the pharmacologic management of COPD after formulating specific questions to be answered using rigorous GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.²

Recommendation 1

Patients with COPD who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance should be treated with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) (dual LAMA/LABA therapy) instead of monotherapy, the guideline says.

This recommendation represents a critical change in care and is based on strong evidence. For years practitioners have been using single bronchodilator therapy, often a LAMA as the entrance to treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD. The recommendation to begin treatment with dual bronchodilator therapy is an important one. This is the only recommendation that received a “strong” grade.

The evidence comes from the compilation of 24 randomized controlled trials that altogether included 45,441 patients. Dual therapy versus monotherapy was evaluated by examining differences in dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exacerbations (which were defined as requiring antibiotics, oral steroids, or hospitalizations), and hospitalizations independently. Marked improvements were observed for exacerbations and hospitalizations in the dual LAMA/LABA group, compared with treatment with use of a single bronchodilator. In 22,733 patients across 15 RCTs, there were 88 fewer exacerbations per 1,000 patients with a rate ratio (RR) of 0.80 (P < .002), the guideline states.

The decrease in exacerbations is a critical factor in treating patients with COPD because each exacerbation can lead to a sustained decrease in airflow and increases the risk of future exacerbations.
 

Recommendation 2

In COPD patients who report dyspnea or exercise intolerance, with an exacerbation in the last year, the guideline recommends triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) instead of just dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

In the past many clinicians have relegated triple therapy to a “last ditch resort.” This recommendation makes it clear that triple therapy is appropriate for a broad range of patients with moderate to severe COPD.
 

Recommendation 3

In patients with COPD who are on triple therapy, the inhaled corticosteroid component can be withdrawn if patients have not had an exacerbation within the last year, according to the guideline.

It should be noted that the committee said that the ICS can be withdrawn, not that it necessarily needs to be withdrawn. The data showed that it would be safe to withdraw the ICS, but the data is limited in time to 1 year’s follow-up.
 

Recommendation 4

ATS was not able to make a recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to LAMA/LABA in those without an exacerbation and elevated blood eosinophilia (defined as ≥2% blood eosinophils or >149 cell/mcL). In those with at least one exacerbation and increased blood eosinophilia, the society does recommend addition of ICS to dual LAMA/LABA therapy.

An area of ongoing discussion is at what point in disease severity, before exacerbations occur, might ICS be useful in preventing a first exacerbation. This awaits further studies and evidence.
 

Recommendation 5

In COPD patients with frequent and severe exacerbations who are otherwise medically optimized, the ATS advises against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

It has been known and accepted for years that oral steroids should be avoided if at all possible because they have little benefit and can cause significant harm. The guideline reinforces this.
 

The Bottom Line

Dual LAMA/LABA therapy in symptomatic patients is the standard of care. If a patient has had an exacerbation within the last year, add an ICS to the LAMA/LABA, most conveniently given in the form of triple therapy in one inhaler. Finally, even in refractory COPD, maintenance oral corticosteroids bring more harm than benefit.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Matthews is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

References

1. Wells C, Joo MJ. COPD and asthma: Diagnostic accuracy requires spirometry. J Fam Pract. 2019;68(2):76-81.

2. Nici L, Mammen MJ, Charbek E, et al. Pharmacologic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(9):e56-69.

Proton pump inhibitors may short-circuit the benefits of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer, according to a post hoc analysis of 1,360 subjects from two atezolizumab trials.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was associated with worse overall and progression-free survival among patients on atezolizumab, but there was no such association in a matched cohort receiving chemotherapy alone. In short, concomitant “PPI users had no atezolizumab benefit,” wrote the investigators led by Ashley Hopkins, PhD, a research fellow at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

This is the first time that PPI use has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for worse survival in this setting with atezolizumab use – but not with chemotherapy, wrote the authors of the study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research.

“PPIs are overused, or inappropriately used, in patients with cancer by up to 50%, seemingly from a perspective that they will cause no harm. The findings from this study suggest that noncritical PPI use needs to be approached very cautiously, particularly when an immune checkpoint inhibitor is being used to treat urothelial cancer,” Hopkins said in a press release.

Although about one third of cancer patients use PPIs, there has been growing evidence that the changes they induce in the gut microbiome impact immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) effectiveness. A similar study of pooled trial data recently found that PPIs, as well as antibiotics, were associated with worse survival in advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab, while no such tie was found with chemotherapy (Ann Oncol. 2020;31:525-31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.01.006).

The mechanism is uncertain. PPIs have been associated with T-cell tolerance, pharmacokinetic changes, and decreased gut microbiota diversity. High diversity, the investigators noted, has been associated with stronger ICI responses in melanoma. Antibiotics have been associated with similar gut dysbiosis.

“It is increasingly evident that altered gut microbiota impacts homeostasis, immune response, cancer prognosis, and ICI efficacy. The hypothetical basis of [our] research is that PPIs are associated with marked changes to the gut microbiota, driven by both altered stomach acidity and direct compound effects, and these changes may impact immunotherapy,” Hopkins said in an email to Medscape.

The associations with urothelial cancer hadn’t been investigated before, so Hopkins and his team pooled patient-level data from the single-arm IMvigor210 trial of atezolizumab for urothelial cancer and the randomized IMvigor211 trial, which pitted atezolizumab against chemotherapy for the indication.

The investigators compared the outcomes of the 471 subjects who were on a PPI from 30 days before to 30 days after starting atezolizumab with the outcomes of 889 subjects who were not on a PPI. Findings were adjusted for tumor histology and the number of prior treatments and metastases sites, as well as age, body mass index, performance status, and other potential confounders.

PPI use was associated with markedly worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.83; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.62; P < .001) in patients on atezolizumab but not chemotherapy. PPI use was also associated with worse objective response to the ICI (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82; P = .006).

In the randomized trial, atezolizumab seemed to offer no overall survival benefit versus chemotherapy when PPIs were onboard (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34), but atezolizumab offered a substantial benefit when PPIs were not in use (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84). Findings were consistent when limited to the PD-L1 IC2/3 population.

It seems that PPIs negate “the magnitude of atezolizumab efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant antibiotics made the effect of PPIs on overall survival with atezolizumab even worse (antibiotics plus PPI: HR 2.51; 95% CI, 1.12-5.59; versus no antibiotics with PPI: HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.74).

The investigators cautioned that, although “the conducted analyses have been adjusted, there is the potential that PPI use constitutes a surrogate marker for an unfit or immunodeficient patient.” They called for further investigation with other ICIs, cancer types, and chemotherapy regimens.

The dose and compliance with PPI therapy were unknown, but the team noted that over 90% of the PPI subjects were on PPIs for long-term reasons, most commonly gastric protection and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Omeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole were the most frequently used. 

There were no significant associations between PPI use and the first occurrence of atezolizumab-induced adverse events.

The study was funded by the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia) and the Cancer Council South Australia. Hopkins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including makers of ICIs. The full list can be found with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proton pump inhibitors may short-circuit the benefits of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer, according to a post hoc analysis of 1,360 subjects from two atezolizumab trials.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was associated with worse overall and progression-free survival among patients on atezolizumab, but there was no such association in a matched cohort receiving chemotherapy alone. In short, concomitant “PPI users had no atezolizumab benefit,” wrote the investigators led by Ashley Hopkins, PhD, a research fellow at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

This is the first time that PPI use has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for worse survival in this setting with atezolizumab use – but not with chemotherapy, wrote the authors of the study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research.

“PPIs are overused, or inappropriately used, in patients with cancer by up to 50%, seemingly from a perspective that they will cause no harm. The findings from this study suggest that noncritical PPI use needs to be approached very cautiously, particularly when an immune checkpoint inhibitor is being used to treat urothelial cancer,” Hopkins said in a press release.

Although about one third of cancer patients use PPIs, there has been growing evidence that the changes they induce in the gut microbiome impact immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) effectiveness. A similar study of pooled trial data recently found that PPIs, as well as antibiotics, were associated with worse survival in advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab, while no such tie was found with chemotherapy (Ann Oncol. 2020;31:525-31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.01.006).

The mechanism is uncertain. PPIs have been associated with T-cell tolerance, pharmacokinetic changes, and decreased gut microbiota diversity. High diversity, the investigators noted, has been associated with stronger ICI responses in melanoma. Antibiotics have been associated with similar gut dysbiosis.

“It is increasingly evident that altered gut microbiota impacts homeostasis, immune response, cancer prognosis, and ICI efficacy. The hypothetical basis of [our] research is that PPIs are associated with marked changes to the gut microbiota, driven by both altered stomach acidity and direct compound effects, and these changes may impact immunotherapy,” Hopkins said in an email to Medscape.

The associations with urothelial cancer hadn’t been investigated before, so Hopkins and his team pooled patient-level data from the single-arm IMvigor210 trial of atezolizumab for urothelial cancer and the randomized IMvigor211 trial, which pitted atezolizumab against chemotherapy for the indication.

The investigators compared the outcomes of the 471 subjects who were on a PPI from 30 days before to 30 days after starting atezolizumab with the outcomes of 889 subjects who were not on a PPI. Findings were adjusted for tumor histology and the number of prior treatments and metastases sites, as well as age, body mass index, performance status, and other potential confounders.

PPI use was associated with markedly worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.83; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.62; P < .001) in patients on atezolizumab but not chemotherapy. PPI use was also associated with worse objective response to the ICI (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82; P = .006).

In the randomized trial, atezolizumab seemed to offer no overall survival benefit versus chemotherapy when PPIs were onboard (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34), but atezolizumab offered a substantial benefit when PPIs were not in use (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84). Findings were consistent when limited to the PD-L1 IC2/3 population.

It seems that PPIs negate “the magnitude of atezolizumab efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant antibiotics made the effect of PPIs on overall survival with atezolizumab even worse (antibiotics plus PPI: HR 2.51; 95% CI, 1.12-5.59; versus no antibiotics with PPI: HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.74).

The investigators cautioned that, although “the conducted analyses have been adjusted, there is the potential that PPI use constitutes a surrogate marker for an unfit or immunodeficient patient.” They called for further investigation with other ICIs, cancer types, and chemotherapy regimens.

The dose and compliance with PPI therapy were unknown, but the team noted that over 90% of the PPI subjects were on PPIs for long-term reasons, most commonly gastric protection and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Omeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole were the most frequently used. 

There were no significant associations between PPI use and the first occurrence of atezolizumab-induced adverse events.

The study was funded by the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia) and the Cancer Council South Australia. Hopkins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including makers of ICIs. The full list can be found with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proton pump inhibitors may short-circuit the benefits of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer, according to a post hoc analysis of 1,360 subjects from two atezolizumab trials.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was associated with worse overall and progression-free survival among patients on atezolizumab, but there was no such association in a matched cohort receiving chemotherapy alone. In short, concomitant “PPI users had no atezolizumab benefit,” wrote the investigators led by Ashley Hopkins, PhD, a research fellow at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia.

This is the first time that PPI use has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for worse survival in this setting with atezolizumab use – but not with chemotherapy, wrote the authors of the study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research.

“PPIs are overused, or inappropriately used, in patients with cancer by up to 50%, seemingly from a perspective that they will cause no harm. The findings from this study suggest that noncritical PPI use needs to be approached very cautiously, particularly when an immune checkpoint inhibitor is being used to treat urothelial cancer,” Hopkins said in a press release.

Although about one third of cancer patients use PPIs, there has been growing evidence that the changes they induce in the gut microbiome impact immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) effectiveness. A similar study of pooled trial data recently found that PPIs, as well as antibiotics, were associated with worse survival in advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab, while no such tie was found with chemotherapy (Ann Oncol. 2020;31:525-31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.01.006).

The mechanism is uncertain. PPIs have been associated with T-cell tolerance, pharmacokinetic changes, and decreased gut microbiota diversity. High diversity, the investigators noted, has been associated with stronger ICI responses in melanoma. Antibiotics have been associated with similar gut dysbiosis.

“It is increasingly evident that altered gut microbiota impacts homeostasis, immune response, cancer prognosis, and ICI efficacy. The hypothetical basis of [our] research is that PPIs are associated with marked changes to the gut microbiota, driven by both altered stomach acidity and direct compound effects, and these changes may impact immunotherapy,” Hopkins said in an email to Medscape.

The associations with urothelial cancer hadn’t been investigated before, so Hopkins and his team pooled patient-level data from the single-arm IMvigor210 trial of atezolizumab for urothelial cancer and the randomized IMvigor211 trial, which pitted atezolizumab against chemotherapy for the indication.

The investigators compared the outcomes of the 471 subjects who were on a PPI from 30 days before to 30 days after starting atezolizumab with the outcomes of 889 subjects who were not on a PPI. Findings were adjusted for tumor histology and the number of prior treatments and metastases sites, as well as age, body mass index, performance status, and other potential confounders.

PPI use was associated with markedly worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.83; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.62; P < .001) in patients on atezolizumab but not chemotherapy. PPI use was also associated with worse objective response to the ICI (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82; P = .006).

In the randomized trial, atezolizumab seemed to offer no overall survival benefit versus chemotherapy when PPIs were onboard (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81-1.34), but atezolizumab offered a substantial benefit when PPIs were not in use (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84). Findings were consistent when limited to the PD-L1 IC2/3 population.

It seems that PPIs negate “the magnitude of atezolizumab efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant antibiotics made the effect of PPIs on overall survival with atezolizumab even worse (antibiotics plus PPI: HR 2.51; 95% CI, 1.12-5.59; versus no antibiotics with PPI: HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.74).

The investigators cautioned that, although “the conducted analyses have been adjusted, there is the potential that PPI use constitutes a surrogate marker for an unfit or immunodeficient patient.” They called for further investigation with other ICIs, cancer types, and chemotherapy regimens.

The dose and compliance with PPI therapy were unknown, but the team noted that over 90% of the PPI subjects were on PPIs for long-term reasons, most commonly gastric protection and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Omeprazole, pantoprazole, and esomeprazole were the most frequently used. 

There were no significant associations between PPI use and the first occurrence of atezolizumab-induced adverse events.

The study was funded by the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia) and the Cancer Council South Australia. Hopkins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including makers of ICIs. The full list can be found with the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Twelve U.S. states have now passed laws aimed at making insulin more affordable – and more than 30 are considering such legislation – but they all have gaps that still put the cost of this basic and essential medication out of reach for many with diabetes.

The laws only apply to health insurance through state-regulated plans, and not to the majority of health plans that cover most Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health system, or self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Overall, Hannah Crabtree, an activist who writes the blog Data for Insulin, estimates state laws that limit copays, deductibles, or other out-of-pocket costs for insulin cover an average of 27% of people with diabetes across the United States.

And while diabetes activists have applauded state actions, most want more help for the under- and uninsured.

“Our chapter will be fighting harder next legislative session for the uninsured,” said Mindie Hooley, the leader of the Utah #insulin4all chapter, which successfully lobbied legislators to pass a bill signed by the state’s governor on March 30.

“With so many losing their jobs because of the pandemic, there’s no better time than now to fight for these patients who don’t have insurance,” Ms. Hooley said in an interview.

The American Diabetes Association has also been lobbying for state caps as one of many avenues for making insulin more affordable, said Stephen Habbe, the ADA’s director for state government affairs.

One in four insulin users report rationing the medication, Mr. Habbe said.

The state laws “can really provide important relief in terms of affordability for their insulin costs, which we know can be critical in terms of preserving their life and helping to prevent complications that can potentially be disabling or even deadly,” he said in an interview.

Activists with T1 International, which created the #insulin4all campaign, are working nationwide to convince state legislators to back measures that limit out-of-pocket costs for insulin, or for other diabetes medications and supplies.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia have enacted such limits, with caps ranging from $25 to $100.
 

Insulin makers unfazed, blame insurers, PBMs for high prices

The three insulin manufacturers in the United States – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi– have not overtly fought against the laws, although in July, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America did sue to block a related Minnesota law that provides a free emergency supply of insulin.

And the nonprofit news organization FairWarning reported in August that a lobbyist from Eli Lilly had attempted to push a Tennessee legislator to keep the uninsured from being eligible for any out-of-pocket limits.

The insulin makers have also not lowered prices in response to the mounting number of state laws.

They see no need, said Tara O’Neill Hayes, director of human welfare policy at the American Action Forum, a center right–leaning Washington, D.C., think tank.

“You’re going to do what you can get away with,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes said in an interview. “To the extent that they can keep their prices high and people are still buying, they have limited incentives to lower those costs.”

The insulin market is dysfunctional, she added. “The increasing cost of insulin seems primarily to be the result of a lack of competition in the market and convoluted drug pricing and insurance practices,” Ms. O’Neill Hayes and colleagues wrote in a report in April on federal and state attempts to address insulin affordability.

Novo Nordisk, however, maintains that drugmakers are not solely to blame.

“Everyone in the health care system has a role to play in affordability,” said Ken Inchausti, Novo Nordisk’s senior director for corporate communications. State legislation “attempts to address a systemic issue in [U.S.] health care: How benefit design can make medicines unaffordable for many, especially for those in high-deductible health plans,” he said in an interview.

“Efforts to place copay caps on insurance plans covering insulin can certainly help lower out-of-pocket costs,” said Mr. Inchausti.

Sanofi spokesperson Jon Florio said the company supports actions that increase affordable access to insulin. However, “while we support capped copays, we feel this should not be limited to just one class of medicines,” he said. Mr. Florio also noted that Sanofi provides out-of-pocket caps to anyone with commercial insurance and that anyone without insurance can buy one or multiple Sanofi insulins for a fixed price of $99 per month, up to 10 boxes of pens and/or 10-mL vials.

And Sanofi will take part in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new insulin demonstration program. Starting in 2021, CMS will cap insulin copays at $35 for people in Part D plans that participate.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Brad Jacklin said the company “believes in the common goal of ensuring affordable access to insulin and other life-saving medicines because nobody should have to forgo or ration because of cost.”

Lilly supports efforts “that more directly affect patients’ cost-sharing based on their health care coverage,” he said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should pass savings on to patients, Mr. Jacklin urged. Lilly caps some insulins at $35 for the uninsured or commercially insured. The company will also participate in the CMS program.

Meanwhile, a PhRMA-sponsored website www.letstalkaboutcost.org said that, because they do not share savings, insurers and PBMs are responsible for high insulin costs.

Manufacturer assistance programs for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, on the other hand, can save individuals $300-$500 a year, PhRMA said in August.
 

PBMs point back at insulin manufacturers

PBMs, however, point back at drug companies. “PBMs have been able to moderate insulin costs for most consumers with insurance,” said J.C. Scott, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM trade group, in a statement.

The rising cost of insulin is caused by a lack of competition and overuse of patent extensions, PCMA maintains.

Health insurers, which, in tandem with PBMs, give insulins formulary preference based on a discounted price, are most likely to feel the impact of laws limiting out-of-pocket costs.

If they have to make up the shortfall from a patient’s reduced payment for a prescription, they will likely raise premiums, said Ms. O’Neill Hayes.

And if patients pay the same price for insulin – regardless of who makes it – drugmakers won’t have much incentive to offer discounts or rebates for formulary placement, she said. Again, that would likely lead to higher premiums.

David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an interview that AHIP believes lack of competition has driven up insulin prices.

“High prices for insulin correspond with high health insurance costs for insulin,” he said. When CMS starts requiring drugmakers to discount their insulins for Medicare that will allow “health plans to use those savings to reduce out-of-pocket [costs] for seniors.”

He did not respond to a question as to why health insurers were not already passing savings on to commercially insured patients, especially in states with out-of-pocket limits.

Mr. Allen did say that AHIP’s plans “stand ready to work with state policymakers to remove barriers to lower insulin prices for Americans.”
 

Utah savings hopefully saving lives already

In Utah, legislators tuned out the blame game, and instead were keen to listen to patients, who had many stories about how the high cost of insulin had hurt them, said Ms. Hooley.

She noted an estimated 50,000 Utahans rely on insulin to stay alive.

Ms. Hooley and her chapter convinced legislators to pass a bill that gives insurers the option to cap patient copays at $30 per month, or to put insulin on its lowest formulary tier and waive any patient deductible. That aspect of the law does not go into effect until January 2021, but insurers are already starting to move insulin to the lowest formulary tier.

That has helped some people immediately. One state resident said her most recent insulin prescription cost $7 – instead of the usual $200.

The uninsured are not left totally high and dry either. Starting June 1, anyone in the state could buy through a state bulk-purchasing program, which guaranteed a 60% discount.

Ms. Hooley said she’d recently heard about a patient who usually spent $300 per prescription but was able to buy insulin for $100 through the program.

“Although $100 is still too much, it is nice knowing the Utah Insulin Savings Program is saving lives,” Ms. Hooley concluded.

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

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. In 2017, there were 47,173 deaths by suicide (14 deaths per 100,000 people), representing a 33% increase from 1999.¹ In 2017 veterans accounted for 13.5% of all suicide deaths among US adults, although veterans comprised only 7.9% of the adult population; the age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate was 1.5 times higher for veterans than that of nonveteran adults.^2,3

Among veteran users of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) services, mental health and substance use disorders, chronic medical conditions, and chronic pain are associated with an increased risk for suicide.³ About one-half of VHA veterans have been diagnosed with chronic pain.⁴ A chronic pain diagnosis (eg, back pain, migraine, and psychogenic pain) increased the risk of death by suicide even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, according to a study on pain and suicide among US veterans.⁵

One-quarter of veterans received an opioid prescription during VHA outpatient care in 2012.⁴ Increased prescribing of opioid medications has been associated with opioid overdose and suicides.^6-10 Opioids are the most common drugs found in suicide by overdose.¹¹ The rate of opioid-related suicide deaths is 13 times higher among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) than it is for those without OUD.¹² The rate of OUD diagnosis among VHA users was 7 times higher than that for non-VHA users.¹³

In the US the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths increased from 6 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22 per 100,000 in 2017.¹⁴ Drug overdoses accounted for 52,404 US deaths in 2015; 33,091 (63.1%) were from opioids.¹⁵ In 2017, there were 70,237 drug overdose deaths; 67.8% involved opioids (ie, 5 per 100,000 population represent prescription opioids).¹⁶

The VHA is committed to reducing opioid use and veteran suicide prevention. In 2013 the VHA launched the Opioid Safety Initiative employing 4 strategies: education, pain management, risk management, and addiction treatment.¹⁷ To address the opioid epidemic, the North Florida/South Georgia Veteran Health System (NF/SGVHS) developed and implemented a multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program that is fully integrated with mental health and addiction services. The purpose of the NF/SGVHS one-stop pain addiction clinic is to provide a treatment program for chronic pain and addiction. The program includes elements of a whole health approach to pain care, including battlefield and traditional acupuncture. The focus went beyond replacing pharmacologic treatments with a complementary integrative health approach to helping veterans regain control of their lives through empowerment, skill building, shared goal setting, and reinforcing self-management.

The self-management programs include a pain school for patient education, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, all stressing self-management offered onsite and via telehealth. Special effort was directed to identify patients with OUD and opioid dependence. Many of these patients were transitioned to buprenorphine, a potent analgesic that suppresses opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping opioids. The clinic was structured so that patients could be seen often for follow-up and support. In addition, open lines of communication and referral were set up between this clinic, the interventional pain clinic, and the physical medicine and rehabilitation service. A detailed description of this program has been published elsewhere.¹⁸

The number of veterans receiving opioid prescription across the VHA system decreased by 172,000 prescriptions quarterly between 2012 and 2016.¹⁹ Fewer veterans were prescribed high doses of opioids or concomitant interacting medicines and more veterans were receiving nonopioid therapies.¹⁹ The prescription reduction across the VHA has varied. For example, from 2012 to 2017 the NF/SGVHS reported an 87% reduction of opioid prescriptions (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalents/d), compared with the VHA national average reduction of 49%.¹⁸

Vigorous opioid reduction is controversial. In a systematic review on opioid reduction, Frank and colleagues reported some beneficial effects of opioid reduction, such as increased health-related quality of life.²⁰ However, another study suggested a risk of increased pain with opioid tapering.²¹ The literature findings on the association between prescription opioid use and suicide are mixed. The VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention literature review reported that veterans were at increased risk of committing suicide within the first 6 months of discontinuing opioid therapy.²² Another study reported that veterans who discontinued long-term opioid treatment had an increased risk for suicidal ideation.²³ However, higher doses of opioids were associated with an increased risk for suicide among individuals with chronic pain.¹⁰ The link between opioid tapering and the risk of suicide or overdose is uncertain.

Bohnert and Ilgen suggested that discontinuing prescription opioids leads to suicide without examining the risk factors that influenced discontinuation is ill-informed.⁷ Strong evidence about the association or relationship among opioid use, overdose, and suicide is needed. To increase our understanding of that association, Bohnert and Ilgen argued for multifaceted interventions that simultaneously address the shared causes and risk factors for OUD,⁷ such as the multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program at NF/SGVHS.

Because of the reported association between robust integrated mental health and addiction, primary care pain clinic intervention, and the higher rate of opioid tapering in NF/SGVHS,¹⁸ this study aims to describe the pattern of overdose diagnosis (opioid overdose and nonopioid overdose) and pattern of suicide rates among veterans enrolled in NF/SGVHS, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 8, and the entire VA health care system during 2012 to 2016.The study reviewed and compared overdose diagnosis and suicide rates among veterans across NF/SGVHS and 2 other levels of the VA health care system to determine whether there were variances in the pattern of overdose/suicide rates and to explore these differences.

Methods

In this retrospective study, aggregate data were obtained from several sources. First, the drug overdose data were extracted from the VA Support Service Center (VSSC) medical diagnosis cube. We reviewed the literature for opioid codes reported in the literature and compared these reported opioid International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes with the local facility patient-level comprehensive overdose diagnosis codes. Based on the comparison, we found 98 ICD-9 and ICD-10 overdose diagnosis codes and ran the modified codes against the VSSC national database. Overdose data were aggregated by facility and fiscal year, and the overdose rates (per 1,000) were calculated for unique veteran users at the 3 levels (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VA national) as the denominator.

Each of the 18 VISNs comprise multiple VAMCs and clinics within a geographic region. VISN 8 encompasses most of Florida and portions of southern Georgia and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands), including NF/SGVHS.

In this study, drug overdose refers to the overdose or poisoning from all drugs (ie, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives, etc) and defined as any unintentional (accidental), deliberate, or intent undetermined drug poisoning.²⁴ The suicide data for this study were drawn from the VA Suicide Prevention Program at 3 different levels: NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. Suicide is death caused by an intentional act of injuring oneself with the intent to die.²⁵

This descriptive study compared the rate of annual drug overdoses (per 1,000 enrollees) between NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national from 2012 to 2016. It also compared the annual rate of suicide per 100,000 enrollees across these 3 levels of the VHA. The overdose and suicide rates and numbers are mutually exclusive, meaning the VISN 8 data do not include the NF/SGVHS information, and the national data excluded data from VISN 8 and NF/SGVHS. This approach helped improve the quality of multiple level comparisons for different levels of the VHA system.

Results

Figure 1 shows the pattern of overdose diagnosis by rates (per 1,000) across the study period (2012 to 2016) and compares patterns at 3 levels of VHA (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national). The average annual rate of overdose diagnoses for NF/SGVHS during the study was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) than that of VISN 8 (16 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000), but by the end of the study period the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than the VISN 8 rate (20.4 per 1,000). Additionally, NF/SGVHS had less variability (SD, 1.34) in yearly average overdose rates compared with VISN 8 (SD, 2.96), and VHA national (SD, 1.69).

From 2013 to 2014 the overdose diagnosis rate for NF/SGVHS remained the same (17.1 per 1,000). A similar pattern was observed for the VHA national data, whereas the VISN 8 data showed a steady increase during the same period. In 2015, the NF/SGVHS had 0.7 per 1,000 decrease in overdose diagnosis rate, whereas VISN 8 and VHA national data showed 1.7 per 1,000 and 0.9 per 1,000 increases, respectively. During the last year of the study (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all the health care systems, ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8.

Figure 2 shows the annual rates (per 100,000 individuals) of suicide for NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. The suicide pattern for VISN 8 shows a cyclical acceleration and deceleration trend across the study period. From 2012 to 2014, the VHA national data show a steady increase of about 1 per 100,000 from year to year. On the contrary, NF/SGVHS shows a low suicide rate from year to year within the same period with a rate of 10 per 100,000 in 2013 compared with the previous year. Although the NF/SGVHS suicide rate increased in 2016 (10.4 per 100,000), it remained lower than that of VISN 8 (10.7 per 100,00) and VHA national (38.2 per 100,000).

Discussion

This study described and compared the distribution pattern of overdose (nonopioid and opioid) and suicide rates at different levels of the VHA system. Although VHA implemented systemwide opioid tapering in 2013, little is known about the association between opioid tapering and overdose and suicide. We believe a retrospective examination regarding overdose and suicide among VHA users at 3 different levels of the system from 2012 to 2016 could contribute to the discussion regarding the potential risks and benefits of discontinuing opioids.

First, the average annual rate of overdose diagnosis for NF/SGVHS during the study period was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) compared with those of VISN 8 (16.0 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000) with a general pattern of increase and minimum variations in the rates observed during the study period among the 3 levels of the system. These increased overdose patterns are consistent with other reports in the literature.¹⁴ By the end of the study period, the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than VISN 8 (20.4 per 1,000). During the last year of the study period (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all health care systems ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8, which might be because of the VHA systemwide change of diagnosis code from ICD-9 to ICD-10, which includes more detailed diagnosis codes.

Second, our results showed that NF/SGVHS had the lowest average annual suicide rate (9.1 per 100,000) during the study period, which is one-fourth the VHA national rate and 2.6 per 100,000 lower than the VISN 8 rate. According to Bohnert and Ilgen,programs that improve the quality of pain care, expand access to psychotherapy, and increase access to medication-assisted treatment for OUDs could reduce suicide by drug overdose.⁷ We suggest that the low suicide rate at NF/SGVHS and the difference in the suicide rates between the NF/SGVHS and VISN 8 and VHA national data might be associated with the practice-based biopsychosocial interventions implemented at NF/SGVHS.

Our data showed a rise in the incidence of suicide at the NF/SGVHS in 2016. We are not aware of a local change in conditions, policy, and practice that would account for this increase. Suicide is variable, and data are likely to show spikes and valleys. Based on the available data, although the incidence of suicides at the NF/SGVHS in 2016 was higher, it remained below the VISN 8 and national VHA rate. This study seems to support the practice of tapering or stopping opioids within the context of a multidisciplinary approach that offers frequent follow-up, nonopioid options, and treatment of opioid addiction/dependence.

Limitations

The research findings of this study are limited by the retrospective and descriptive nature of its design. However, the findings might provide important information for understanding variations of overdose and suicide among VHA enrollees. Studies that use more robust methodologies are warranted to clinically investigate the impact of a multispecialty opioid risk reduction program targeting chronic pain and addiction management and identify best practices of opioid reduction and any unintended consequences that might arise from opioid tapering.²⁶ Further, we did not have access to the VA national overdose and suicide data after 2016. Similar to most retrospective data studies, ours might be limited by availability of national overdose and suicide data after 2016. It is important for future studies to cross-validate our study findings.

Conclusions

The NF/SGVHS developed and implemented a biopsychosocial model of pain treatment that includes multicomponent primary care integrated with mental health and addiction services as well as the interventional pain and physical medicine and rehabilitation services. The presence of this program, during a period when the facility was tapering opioids is likely to account for at least part of the relative reduction in suicide.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. In 2017, there were 47,173 deaths by suicide (14 deaths per 100,000 people), representing a 33% increase from 1999.¹ In 2017 veterans accounted for 13.5% of all suicide deaths among US adults, although veterans comprised only 7.9% of the adult population; the age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate was 1.5 times higher for veterans than that of nonveteran adults.^2,3

Among veteran users of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) services, mental health and substance use disorders, chronic medical conditions, and chronic pain are associated with an increased risk for suicide.³ About one-half of VHA veterans have been diagnosed with chronic pain.⁴ A chronic pain diagnosis (eg, back pain, migraine, and psychogenic pain) increased the risk of death by suicide even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, according to a study on pain and suicide among US veterans.⁵

One-quarter of veterans received an opioid prescription during VHA outpatient care in 2012.⁴ Increased prescribing of opioid medications has been associated with opioid overdose and suicides.^6-10 Opioids are the most common drugs found in suicide by overdose.¹¹ The rate of opioid-related suicide deaths is 13 times higher among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) than it is for those without OUD.¹² The rate of OUD diagnosis among VHA users was 7 times higher than that for non-VHA users.¹³

In the US the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths increased from 6 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22 per 100,000 in 2017.¹⁴ Drug overdoses accounted for 52,404 US deaths in 2015; 33,091 (63.1%) were from opioids.¹⁵ In 2017, there were 70,237 drug overdose deaths; 67.8% involved opioids (ie, 5 per 100,000 population represent prescription opioids).¹⁶

The VHA is committed to reducing opioid use and veteran suicide prevention. In 2013 the VHA launched the Opioid Safety Initiative employing 4 strategies: education, pain management, risk management, and addiction treatment.¹⁷ To address the opioid epidemic, the North Florida/South Georgia Veteran Health System (NF/SGVHS) developed and implemented a multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program that is fully integrated with mental health and addiction services. The purpose of the NF/SGVHS one-stop pain addiction clinic is to provide a treatment program for chronic pain and addiction. The program includes elements of a whole health approach to pain care, including battlefield and traditional acupuncture. The focus went beyond replacing pharmacologic treatments with a complementary integrative health approach to helping veterans regain control of their lives through empowerment, skill building, shared goal setting, and reinforcing self-management.

The self-management programs include a pain school for patient education, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, all stressing self-management offered onsite and via telehealth. Special effort was directed to identify patients with OUD and opioid dependence. Many of these patients were transitioned to buprenorphine, a potent analgesic that suppresses opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping opioids. The clinic was structured so that patients could be seen often for follow-up and support. In addition, open lines of communication and referral were set up between this clinic, the interventional pain clinic, and the physical medicine and rehabilitation service. A detailed description of this program has been published elsewhere.¹⁸

The number of veterans receiving opioid prescription across the VHA system decreased by 172,000 prescriptions quarterly between 2012 and 2016.¹⁹ Fewer veterans were prescribed high doses of opioids or concomitant interacting medicines and more veterans were receiving nonopioid therapies.¹⁹ The prescription reduction across the VHA has varied. For example, from 2012 to 2017 the NF/SGVHS reported an 87% reduction of opioid prescriptions (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalents/d), compared with the VHA national average reduction of 49%.¹⁸

Vigorous opioid reduction is controversial. In a systematic review on opioid reduction, Frank and colleagues reported some beneficial effects of opioid reduction, such as increased health-related quality of life.²⁰ However, another study suggested a risk of increased pain with opioid tapering.²¹ The literature findings on the association between prescription opioid use and suicide are mixed. The VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention literature review reported that veterans were at increased risk of committing suicide within the first 6 months of discontinuing opioid therapy.²² Another study reported that veterans who discontinued long-term opioid treatment had an increased risk for suicidal ideation.²³ However, higher doses of opioids were associated with an increased risk for suicide among individuals with chronic pain.¹⁰ The link between opioid tapering and the risk of suicide or overdose is uncertain.

Bohnert and Ilgen suggested that discontinuing prescription opioids leads to suicide without examining the risk factors that influenced discontinuation is ill-informed.⁷ Strong evidence about the association or relationship among opioid use, overdose, and suicide is needed. To increase our understanding of that association, Bohnert and Ilgen argued for multifaceted interventions that simultaneously address the shared causes and risk factors for OUD,⁷ such as the multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program at NF/SGVHS.

Because of the reported association between robust integrated mental health and addiction, primary care pain clinic intervention, and the higher rate of opioid tapering in NF/SGVHS,¹⁸ this study aims to describe the pattern of overdose diagnosis (opioid overdose and nonopioid overdose) and pattern of suicide rates among veterans enrolled in NF/SGVHS, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 8, and the entire VA health care system during 2012 to 2016.The study reviewed and compared overdose diagnosis and suicide rates among veterans across NF/SGVHS and 2 other levels of the VA health care system to determine whether there were variances in the pattern of overdose/suicide rates and to explore these differences.

Methods

In this retrospective study, aggregate data were obtained from several sources. First, the drug overdose data were extracted from the VA Support Service Center (VSSC) medical diagnosis cube. We reviewed the literature for opioid codes reported in the literature and compared these reported opioid International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes with the local facility patient-level comprehensive overdose diagnosis codes. Based on the comparison, we found 98 ICD-9 and ICD-10 overdose diagnosis codes and ran the modified codes against the VSSC national database. Overdose data were aggregated by facility and fiscal year, and the overdose rates (per 1,000) were calculated for unique veteran users at the 3 levels (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VA national) as the denominator.

Each of the 18 VISNs comprise multiple VAMCs and clinics within a geographic region. VISN 8 encompasses most of Florida and portions of southern Georgia and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands), including NF/SGVHS.

In this study, drug overdose refers to the overdose or poisoning from all drugs (ie, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives, etc) and defined as any unintentional (accidental), deliberate, or intent undetermined drug poisoning.²⁴ The suicide data for this study were drawn from the VA Suicide Prevention Program at 3 different levels: NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. Suicide is death caused by an intentional act of injuring oneself with the intent to die.²⁵

This descriptive study compared the rate of annual drug overdoses (per 1,000 enrollees) between NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national from 2012 to 2016. It also compared the annual rate of suicide per 100,000 enrollees across these 3 levels of the VHA. The overdose and suicide rates and numbers are mutually exclusive, meaning the VISN 8 data do not include the NF/SGVHS information, and the national data excluded data from VISN 8 and NF/SGVHS. This approach helped improve the quality of multiple level comparisons for different levels of the VHA system.

Results

Figure 1 shows the pattern of overdose diagnosis by rates (per 1,000) across the study period (2012 to 2016) and compares patterns at 3 levels of VHA (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national). The average annual rate of overdose diagnoses for NF/SGVHS during the study was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) than that of VISN 8 (16 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000), but by the end of the study period the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than the VISN 8 rate (20.4 per 1,000). Additionally, NF/SGVHS had less variability (SD, 1.34) in yearly average overdose rates compared with VISN 8 (SD, 2.96), and VHA national (SD, 1.69).

From 2013 to 2014 the overdose diagnosis rate for NF/SGVHS remained the same (17.1 per 1,000). A similar pattern was observed for the VHA national data, whereas the VISN 8 data showed a steady increase during the same period. In 2015, the NF/SGVHS had 0.7 per 1,000 decrease in overdose diagnosis rate, whereas VISN 8 and VHA national data showed 1.7 per 1,000 and 0.9 per 1,000 increases, respectively. During the last year of the study (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all the health care systems, ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8.

Figure 2 shows the annual rates (per 100,000 individuals) of suicide for NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. The suicide pattern for VISN 8 shows a cyclical acceleration and deceleration trend across the study period. From 2012 to 2014, the VHA national data show a steady increase of about 1 per 100,000 from year to year. On the contrary, NF/SGVHS shows a low suicide rate from year to year within the same period with a rate of 10 per 100,000 in 2013 compared with the previous year. Although the NF/SGVHS suicide rate increased in 2016 (10.4 per 100,000), it remained lower than that of VISN 8 (10.7 per 100,00) and VHA national (38.2 per 100,000).

Discussion

This study described and compared the distribution pattern of overdose (nonopioid and opioid) and suicide rates at different levels of the VHA system. Although VHA implemented systemwide opioid tapering in 2013, little is known about the association between opioid tapering and overdose and suicide. We believe a retrospective examination regarding overdose and suicide among VHA users at 3 different levels of the system from 2012 to 2016 could contribute to the discussion regarding the potential risks and benefits of discontinuing opioids.

First, the average annual rate of overdose diagnosis for NF/SGVHS during the study period was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) compared with those of VISN 8 (16.0 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000) with a general pattern of increase and minimum variations in the rates observed during the study period among the 3 levels of the system. These increased overdose patterns are consistent with other reports in the literature.¹⁴ By the end of the study period, the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than VISN 8 (20.4 per 1,000). During the last year of the study period (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all health care systems ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8, which might be because of the VHA systemwide change of diagnosis code from ICD-9 to ICD-10, which includes more detailed diagnosis codes.

Second, our results showed that NF/SGVHS had the lowest average annual suicide rate (9.1 per 100,000) during the study period, which is one-fourth the VHA national rate and 2.6 per 100,000 lower than the VISN 8 rate. According to Bohnert and Ilgen,programs that improve the quality of pain care, expand access to psychotherapy, and increase access to medication-assisted treatment for OUDs could reduce suicide by drug overdose.⁷ We suggest that the low suicide rate at NF/SGVHS and the difference in the suicide rates between the NF/SGVHS and VISN 8 and VHA national data might be associated with the practice-based biopsychosocial interventions implemented at NF/SGVHS.

Our data showed a rise in the incidence of suicide at the NF/SGVHS in 2016. We are not aware of a local change in conditions, policy, and practice that would account for this increase. Suicide is variable, and data are likely to show spikes and valleys. Based on the available data, although the incidence of suicides at the NF/SGVHS in 2016 was higher, it remained below the VISN 8 and national VHA rate. This study seems to support the practice of tapering or stopping opioids within the context of a multidisciplinary approach that offers frequent follow-up, nonopioid options, and treatment of opioid addiction/dependence.

Limitations

The research findings of this study are limited by the retrospective and descriptive nature of its design. However, the findings might provide important information for understanding variations of overdose and suicide among VHA enrollees. Studies that use more robust methodologies are warranted to clinically investigate the impact of a multispecialty opioid risk reduction program targeting chronic pain and addiction management and identify best practices of opioid reduction and any unintended consequences that might arise from opioid tapering.²⁶ Further, we did not have access to the VA national overdose and suicide data after 2016. Similar to most retrospective data studies, ours might be limited by availability of national overdose and suicide data after 2016. It is important for future studies to cross-validate our study findings.

Conclusions

The NF/SGVHS developed and implemented a biopsychosocial model of pain treatment that includes multicomponent primary care integrated with mental health and addiction services as well as the interventional pain and physical medicine and rehabilitation services. The presence of this program, during a period when the facility was tapering opioids is likely to account for at least part of the relative reduction in suicide.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. In 2017, there were 47,173 deaths by suicide (14 deaths per 100,000 people), representing a 33% increase from 1999.¹ In 2017 veterans accounted for 13.5% of all suicide deaths among US adults, although veterans comprised only 7.9% of the adult population; the age- and sex-adjusted suicide rate was 1.5 times higher for veterans than that of nonveteran adults.^2,3

Among veteran users of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) services, mental health and substance use disorders, chronic medical conditions, and chronic pain are associated with an increased risk for suicide.³ About one-half of VHA veterans have been diagnosed with chronic pain.⁴ A chronic pain diagnosis (eg, back pain, migraine, and psychogenic pain) increased the risk of death by suicide even after adjusting for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, according to a study on pain and suicide among US veterans.⁵

One-quarter of veterans received an opioid prescription during VHA outpatient care in 2012.⁴ Increased prescribing of opioid medications has been associated with opioid overdose and suicides.^6-10 Opioids are the most common drugs found in suicide by overdose.¹¹ The rate of opioid-related suicide deaths is 13 times higher among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) than it is for those without OUD.¹² The rate of OUD diagnosis among VHA users was 7 times higher than that for non-VHA users.¹³

In the US the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths increased from 6 per 100,000 persons in 1999 to 22 per 100,000 in 2017.¹⁴ Drug overdoses accounted for 52,404 US deaths in 2015; 33,091 (63.1%) were from opioids.¹⁵ In 2017, there were 70,237 drug overdose deaths; 67.8% involved opioids (ie, 5 per 100,000 population represent prescription opioids).¹⁶

The VHA is committed to reducing opioid use and veteran suicide prevention. In 2013 the VHA launched the Opioid Safety Initiative employing 4 strategies: education, pain management, risk management, and addiction treatment.¹⁷ To address the opioid epidemic, the North Florida/South Georgia Veteran Health System (NF/SGVHS) developed and implemented a multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program that is fully integrated with mental health and addiction services. The purpose of the NF/SGVHS one-stop pain addiction clinic is to provide a treatment program for chronic pain and addiction. The program includes elements of a whole health approach to pain care, including battlefield and traditional acupuncture. The focus went beyond replacing pharmacologic treatments with a complementary integrative health approach to helping veterans regain control of their lives through empowerment, skill building, shared goal setting, and reinforcing self-management.

The self-management programs include a pain school for patient education, a pain psychology program, and a yoga program, all stressing self-management offered onsite and via telehealth. Special effort was directed to identify patients with OUD and opioid dependence. Many of these patients were transitioned to buprenorphine, a potent analgesic that suppresses opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping opioids. The clinic was structured so that patients could be seen often for follow-up and support. In addition, open lines of communication and referral were set up between this clinic, the interventional pain clinic, and the physical medicine and rehabilitation service. A detailed description of this program has been published elsewhere.¹⁸

The number of veterans receiving opioid prescription across the VHA system decreased by 172,000 prescriptions quarterly between 2012 and 2016.¹⁹ Fewer veterans were prescribed high doses of opioids or concomitant interacting medicines and more veterans were receiving nonopioid therapies.¹⁹ The prescription reduction across the VHA has varied. For example, from 2012 to 2017 the NF/SGVHS reported an 87% reduction of opioid prescriptions (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalents/d), compared with the VHA national average reduction of 49%.¹⁸

Vigorous opioid reduction is controversial. In a systematic review on opioid reduction, Frank and colleagues reported some beneficial effects of opioid reduction, such as increased health-related quality of life.²⁰ However, another study suggested a risk of increased pain with opioid tapering.²¹ The literature findings on the association between prescription opioid use and suicide are mixed. The VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention literature review reported that veterans were at increased risk of committing suicide within the first 6 months of discontinuing opioid therapy.²² Another study reported that veterans who discontinued long-term opioid treatment had an increased risk for suicidal ideation.²³ However, higher doses of opioids were associated with an increased risk for suicide among individuals with chronic pain.¹⁰ The link between opioid tapering and the risk of suicide or overdose is uncertain.

Bohnert and Ilgen suggested that discontinuing prescription opioids leads to suicide without examining the risk factors that influenced discontinuation is ill-informed.⁷ Strong evidence about the association or relationship among opioid use, overdose, and suicide is needed. To increase our understanding of that association, Bohnert and Ilgen argued for multifaceted interventions that simultaneously address the shared causes and risk factors for OUD,⁷ such as the multispecialty Opioid Risk Reduction Program at NF/SGVHS.

Because of the reported association between robust integrated mental health and addiction, primary care pain clinic intervention, and the higher rate of opioid tapering in NF/SGVHS,¹⁸ this study aims to describe the pattern of overdose diagnosis (opioid overdose and nonopioid overdose) and pattern of suicide rates among veterans enrolled in NF/SGVHS, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 8, and the entire VA health care system during 2012 to 2016.The study reviewed and compared overdose diagnosis and suicide rates among veterans across NF/SGVHS and 2 other levels of the VA health care system to determine whether there were variances in the pattern of overdose/suicide rates and to explore these differences.

Methods

In this retrospective study, aggregate data were obtained from several sources. First, the drug overdose data were extracted from the VA Support Service Center (VSSC) medical diagnosis cube. We reviewed the literature for opioid codes reported in the literature and compared these reported opioid International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes with the local facility patient-level comprehensive overdose diagnosis codes. Based on the comparison, we found 98 ICD-9 and ICD-10 overdose diagnosis codes and ran the modified codes against the VSSC national database. Overdose data were aggregated by facility and fiscal year, and the overdose rates (per 1,000) were calculated for unique veteran users at the 3 levels (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VA national) as the denominator.

Each of the 18 VISNs comprise multiple VAMCs and clinics within a geographic region. VISN 8 encompasses most of Florida and portions of southern Georgia and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands), including NF/SGVHS.

In this study, drug overdose refers to the overdose or poisoning from all drugs (ie, opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, sedatives, etc) and defined as any unintentional (accidental), deliberate, or intent undetermined drug poisoning.²⁴ The suicide data for this study were drawn from the VA Suicide Prevention Program at 3 different levels: NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. Suicide is death caused by an intentional act of injuring oneself with the intent to die.²⁵

This descriptive study compared the rate of annual drug overdoses (per 1,000 enrollees) between NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national from 2012 to 2016. It also compared the annual rate of suicide per 100,000 enrollees across these 3 levels of the VHA. The overdose and suicide rates and numbers are mutually exclusive, meaning the VISN 8 data do not include the NF/SGVHS information, and the national data excluded data from VISN 8 and NF/SGVHS. This approach helped improve the quality of multiple level comparisons for different levels of the VHA system.

Results

Figure 1 shows the pattern of overdose diagnosis by rates (per 1,000) across the study period (2012 to 2016) and compares patterns at 3 levels of VHA (NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national). The average annual rate of overdose diagnoses for NF/SGVHS during the study was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) than that of VISN 8 (16 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000), but by the end of the study period the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than the VISN 8 rate (20.4 per 1,000). Additionally, NF/SGVHS had less variability (SD, 1.34) in yearly average overdose rates compared with VISN 8 (SD, 2.96), and VHA national (SD, 1.69).

From 2013 to 2014 the overdose diagnosis rate for NF/SGVHS remained the same (17.1 per 1,000). A similar pattern was observed for the VHA national data, whereas the VISN 8 data showed a steady increase during the same period. In 2015, the NF/SGVHS had 0.7 per 1,000 decrease in overdose diagnosis rate, whereas VISN 8 and VHA national data showed 1.7 per 1,000 and 0.9 per 1,000 increases, respectively. During the last year of the study (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all the health care systems, ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8.

Figure 2 shows the annual rates (per 100,000 individuals) of suicide for NF/SGVHS, VISN 8, and VHA national. The suicide pattern for VISN 8 shows a cyclical acceleration and deceleration trend across the study period. From 2012 to 2014, the VHA national data show a steady increase of about 1 per 100,000 from year to year. On the contrary, NF/SGVHS shows a low suicide rate from year to year within the same period with a rate of 10 per 100,000 in 2013 compared with the previous year. Although the NF/SGVHS suicide rate increased in 2016 (10.4 per 100,000), it remained lower than that of VISN 8 (10.7 per 100,00) and VHA national (38.2 per 100,000).

Discussion

This study described and compared the distribution pattern of overdose (nonopioid and opioid) and suicide rates at different levels of the VHA system. Although VHA implemented systemwide opioid tapering in 2013, little is known about the association between opioid tapering and overdose and suicide. We believe a retrospective examination regarding overdose and suicide among VHA users at 3 different levels of the system from 2012 to 2016 could contribute to the discussion regarding the potential risks and benefits of discontinuing opioids.

First, the average annual rate of overdose diagnosis for NF/SGVHS during the study period was slightly higher (16.8 per 1,000) compared with those of VISN 8 (16.0 per 1,000) and VHA national (15.3 per 1,000) with a general pattern of increase and minimum variations in the rates observed during the study period among the 3 levels of the system. These increased overdose patterns are consistent with other reports in the literature.¹⁴ By the end of the study period, the NF/SGVHS rate (18.6 per 1,000) nearly matched the national rate (18.2 per 1,000) and was lower than VISN 8 (20.4 per 1,000). During the last year of the study period (2016), there was a dramatic increase in overdose diagnosis for all health care systems ranging from 2.2 per 1,000 for NF/SGVHS to 3.3 per 1,000 for VISN 8, which might be because of the VHA systemwide change of diagnosis code from ICD-9 to ICD-10, which includes more detailed diagnosis codes.

Second, our results showed that NF/SGVHS had the lowest average annual suicide rate (9.1 per 100,000) during the study period, which is one-fourth the VHA national rate and 2.6 per 100,000 lower than the VISN 8 rate. According to Bohnert and Ilgen,programs that improve the quality of pain care, expand access to psychotherapy, and increase access to medication-assisted treatment for OUDs could reduce suicide by drug overdose.⁷ We suggest that the low suicide rate at NF/SGVHS and the difference in the suicide rates between the NF/SGVHS and VISN 8 and VHA national data might be associated with the practice-based biopsychosocial interventions implemented at NF/SGVHS.

Our data showed a rise in the incidence of suicide at the NF/SGVHS in 2016. We are not aware of a local change in conditions, policy, and practice that would account for this increase. Suicide is variable, and data are likely to show spikes and valleys. Based on the available data, although the incidence of suicides at the NF/SGVHS in 2016 was higher, it remained below the VISN 8 and national VHA rate. This study seems to support the practice of tapering or stopping opioids within the context of a multidisciplinary approach that offers frequent follow-up, nonopioid options, and treatment of opioid addiction/dependence.

Limitations

The research findings of this study are limited by the retrospective and descriptive nature of its design. However, the findings might provide important information for understanding variations of overdose and suicide among VHA enrollees. Studies that use more robust methodologies are warranted to clinically investigate the impact of a multispecialty opioid risk reduction program targeting chronic pain and addiction management and identify best practices of opioid reduction and any unintended consequences that might arise from opioid tapering.²⁶ Further, we did not have access to the VA national overdose and suicide data after 2016. Similar to most retrospective data studies, ours might be limited by availability of national overdose and suicide data after 2016. It is important for future studies to cross-validate our study findings.

Conclusions

The NF/SGVHS developed and implemented a biopsychosocial model of pain treatment that includes multicomponent primary care integrated with mental health and addiction services as well as the interventional pain and physical medicine and rehabilitation services. The presence of this program, during a period when the facility was tapering opioids is likely to account for at least part of the relative reduction in suicide.

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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