Pharmacology

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.

Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.

Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.

Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.

These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.

“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.

And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.

“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”

“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
 

Different mechanisms for each?

Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”

“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.

Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.

Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”

And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.

As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
 

Data supporting the guidelines

Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.

During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).

Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.

“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”

Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with chemotherapy to treat locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that expresses PD-L1, as determined by a combined positive score of 10 or greater on an FDA-approved assay.

The FDA also approved a PD-L1 assay for selecting TNBC patients for pembrolizumab, the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx.

Pembrolizumab is approved for numerous indications in the United States, but the new approval is its first breast cancer indication.

The accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in TNBC was based on progression-free survival (PFS) in the KEYNOTE-355 trial. The FDA noted that continued approval of pembrolizumab in TNBC “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.”

KEYNOTE-355 enrolled patients with locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC who had not received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) plus placebo (n = 281) or chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab at 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 562).

Among PD-L1-positive patients (n = 323), the median PFS was 5.6 months in the placebo arm and 9.7 months in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0012).

The recommended pembrolizumab dose in TNBC is 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks administered prior to chemotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months.

Pembrolizumab can cause immune-mediated adverse reactions that may be severe or fatal, according to Merck, the manufacturer of pembrolizumab. These adverse reactions include pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, severe skin reactions, solid organ transplant rejection, and complications of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“Based on the severity of the adverse reaction, [pembrolizumab] should be withheld or discontinued and corticosteroids administered if appropriate,” the company noted.

For more details on pembrolizumab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.

After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).

Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).

Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.

That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.

Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.

“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.

The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.

The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.

Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.

McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.

Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text


American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.


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

Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.

After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).

Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).

Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.

That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.

Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.

“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.

The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.

The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.

Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.

McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.

Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text


American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.


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

Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.

After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).

Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).

Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.

That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.

Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.

“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.

The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.

The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.

The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.

Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.

McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.

Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text


American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.


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

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.

That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.

“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
 

Early data, tiered interventions

Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.

Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.

“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”

That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.

He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.

Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.

“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:

• Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
• How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
• Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
• How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
• Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
• Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?

Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.

These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.

He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.

For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.

“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
 

Stigma on stigma

The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.

Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.

The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.

“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”

During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.

For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.

They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.

“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.