News

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eastern and southeastern areas of the United States have the highest rates of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research shows.

Investigators at Rush University in Chicago found AD prevalence was highest in Maryland, New York, Mississippi, and Florida. At the county level, Miami-Dade in Florida, Baltimore city, and Bronx County in New York were among the U.S. counties with the highest prevalence of the disease.

Such geographical variations may be caused by the unique make-up of regional populations, study investigator Kumar Rajan, PhD, professor of medicine and director of Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Rajan presented the research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

High-impact research

An estimated 6.7 million Americans are living with AD, a figure that’s expected to double by 2050. Estimating the prevalence of Alzheimer’s across states’ counties can provide a better understanding of region-specific disease burden and have policy implications for resource allocation, Dr. Rajan noted.

To determine the state- and county-specific prevalence of AD, the researchers applied AD data from the Chicago Health and Aging Project, a population-based study that’s about 60% African American, to county- and state-level data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

“We used estimates in our study in Chicago, which began in the 1990s and has approximately 10,800 people, and projected those estimates to county-level populations to see what the variations look like,” said Dr. Rajan.

Of 3,142 counties in 50 states, the East and Southeastern regions of the United States had the highest AD prevalence. For states, the highest rates were in Maryland (12.9%), New York (12.7%), Mississippi (12.5%), and Florida (12.5%).

California and Illinois were also among the top 10 states with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s.

California had the highest number of residents, with 719,000 (95% confidence interval, 665,000-774,400), followed by Florida with 579,000 (95% CI, 539,900 to 620,000), and Texas with 459,000 (95% CI, 422,700 to 496,000).

The three counties with the highest prevalence, all with 16.6%, were Miami-Dade County, Baltimore city, and Bronx County.

One county in the top 10 for AD prevalence was El Paso, Tex., which Dr. Rajan found “a bit surprising,” as Texas was not among the top four states with the highest prevalence.

In addition to older age, what’s likely driving elevated AD prevalence in these areas is the substantially larger proportion of minority populations who are at higher risk for AD, possibly due to health disparities, said Dr. Rajan.

Determining local-level estimates of AD should have “a very high impact” on public health programs aimed at AD prevention, detection, and treatment, he said. In addition, as more AD drugs are approved, there will likely be county-level and even state-level implications for Medicare coverage.

In addition, these new findings could help physicians treating or caring for minority populations “understand the landscape of what the disease looks like,” said Dr. Rajan.

A limitation of the study was that it was based on data from a single study, he noted.

The next step is to expand this research. Dr. Rajan and others are establishing the Regional and Ethnic Variations in Alzheimer’s and Cognitive Health Consortium, with the goal of gaining a better understanding of AD prevalence across six U.S. regions.
 

Optimal resource distribution

In a comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association, said the research provides useful information about AD prevalence at the local level.

“We need to understand how specific demographics and characteristics can help explain some of the high prevalence in certain areas.”

Compared with White Americans, Dr. Griffin noted that Black Americans are twice as likely to have AD, and older Hispanic Americans are 1.5 times as likely.

This new data will help pinpoint areas of high risk and high need so that funding, staffing, and other resources for those with AD and other dementias can be optimally distributed, he said.

“It gives us that kind of geographic specificity in terms of the prevalence so we can dig deeper and better allocate resources on a county level,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association “is fully committed to working with local agencies and being in the communities to assist them in their efforts to intervene in this disease.”

The study also highlights the need for more research to determine what factors other than age and race – such as potential environmental factors – might affect regional AD prevalence, he said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rajan and Dr. Griffin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with high-risk serrated polyps (with or without high-risk adenomas) have a high risk for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) within a median of 3 years after the baseline colonoscopy for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screen, a study suggests.

,

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 253,833 colonoscopies performed after FIT-positive screens in a Dutch CRC screening program.
• A Cox regression analysis assessed the association between the findings at baseline colonoscopy and metachronous CRC risk.
• Investigators categorized patients into subgroups based on removed polyp subtypes and used groups without polyps as a reference.
• High-risk subgroups included those with high-risk serrated polyps, which were defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or traditional serrated adenomas, as well as high-risk adenomas, which were defined as an adenoma of at least 10 mm or containing high-grade dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 504 metachronous CRCs were identified.
• Individuals with high-risk serrated polyps without co-occurring high-risk adenomas had an increased risk for metachronous CRC (hazard ratio, 1.70).
• The highest risk was seen in individuals with both high-risk serrated polyps and high-risk adenomas (HR, 2.0), as well as those with villous adenomas (HR, 2.07).
• Individuals with only high-risk adenomas did not show a significantly increased risk for metachronous CRC (HR, 1.22).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that individuals with high-risk serrated polyps might comprise the higher CRC risk in the first years after colonoscopy. Results of this study could contribute to establish more restrictive polyp surveillance guidelines in a quality-assured setting,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David E. F. W. M. van Toledo, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers. It was published online July 5, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine. The study received no funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively short median follow-up time of 3 years may limit the assessment of long-term metachronous CRC risk. The study population consisted of FIT-positive individuals, which may introduce selection bias. The incidence of metachronous CRC in the study was lower compared with other studies, potentially affecting the risk estimates. The limited number of cases in some subgroups may result in unreliable risk estimations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. van Toledo declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research supports the use of liquid biopsy as an adjunct biomarker for the diagnosis and surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oropharyngeal cancer.

In a retrospective observational cohort study, a commercially available blood test used to evaluate tumor tissue–modified viral-HPV DNA demonstrated 100% specificity for both diagnosis of oropharyngeal cancer and surveillance for recurrence. Sensitivity was 91.5% for correctly identifying patients who have the disease and 88.4% for surveillance.

“A positive result appeared to confirm the presence of disease, [but] approximately 1 in 10 negative results in patients with pathologically confirmed HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma were falsely negative,” lead investigator Rocco Ferrandino, MD, with Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Therefore, further workup should still be pursued when clinical suspicion for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer is high,” Dr. Ferrandino said.

The study was published online, in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, to coincide with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Head and Neck Society in Montreal.
 

‘Remarkable promise’

The diagnosis of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer currently relies on a tissue-based biopsy of the primary site or a regional lymph node; however, there has been growing interest in the potential of liquid biopsy for diagnosis and surveillance.

The commercially available assay that was evaluated in the study uses a distinct method to identify and quantify a tumor-associated or tumor-modified pattern of DNA fragments that significantly increases the specificity for identifying an HPV-associated malignant tumor. However, evaluation of the assay has been limited to small cohort studies and clinical trials.

In the current study, Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues evaluated the performance of the assay used during routine clinical practice at their high-volume institution over a period of nearly 3 years.

The study included 163 patients in the diagnostic cohort and 290 in the surveillance cohort. In the diagnostic cohort, 152 had HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer, and 11 had HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer. The sensitivity of the assay in pretreatment diagnosis was 91.5% (139 of 152 tests), and the specificity was 100% (11 of 11 tests).

In the surveillance cohort of 290 patients, 591 tests were evaluated. A total of 23 patients developed pathologically confirmed recurrences over a median follow-up of 40.5 months. The assay demonstrated sensitivity of 88.4% (38 of 43 tests) and specificity of 100% (548 of 548 tests) in detecting recurrences.

The median lead time from positive test to pathologic confirmation was 47 days.

“The lead time provided by positive assay results may allow a window of opportunity for salvage treatment or for the application of adjuvant systemic therapy,” Dr. Ferrandino and colleagues explain.

“While these results are exciting and may support adjunctive use of circulating tumor DNA testing for diagnosis and surveillance, we really need more prospective and multicenter studies to validate these findings,” Dr. Ferrandino said in an interview.

In an accompanying commentary, Miriam Lango, MD, department of head and neck surgery, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she agrees that a prospective clinical validation study is needed.

“Nevertheless, the use of this technology shows remarkable promise to transform the ability to identify and follow patients with HPV-related disease. Testing is likely to be increasingly used in routine clinical care, as it is commercially available,” Dr. Lango writes.

Still, she noted, “It is incumbent on us to establish evidence for strong and detailed surveillance guidelines to share among the cancer community.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Ferrandino and Dr. Lango have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

TOPLINE:

Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy may improve tumor regression and decrease recurrence in advanced rectal cancer but does not translate to better overall survival.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
• The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
• Median follow-up was 33 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
• Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
• A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
• The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”

SOURCE:

F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
• Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.

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

TOPLINE:

Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy may improve tumor regression and decrease recurrence in advanced rectal cancer but does not translate to better overall survival.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
• The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
• Median follow-up was 33 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
• Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
• A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
• The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”

SOURCE:

F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
• Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.

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

TOPLINE:

Delaying surgery after neoadjuvant therapy may improve tumor regression and decrease recurrence in advanced rectal cancer but does not translate to better overall survival.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 1,506 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision were divided into three groups based on the time interval between therapy and surgery: short (8 weeks), intermediate (> 8 to 12 weeks), and long (> 12 weeks).
• The primary outcome was pathologic complete response, and secondary outcomes included other histopathologic results, perioperative events, and survival outcomes.
• Median follow-up was 33 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, a pathologic complete response was observed in 255 patients (17.2%).
• Compared with the intermediate interval (reference) group, investigators found no association between time interval and pathologic complete response in the short-interval (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01) or long-interval groups (OR, 1.07; P = .70).
• A long interval was significantly associated with a lower risk of a bad response as measured by tumor regression grade 2-3, compared with the reference category (OR, 0.47), but a higher risk of minor postoperative complications (OR, 1.43), conversion to open surgery (OR, 3.14), and longer operative time.
• The long-interval group was associated with a significantly reduced risk of systemic recurrence, compared with the reference group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .04), but not improved overall survival (HR, 1.38; P = .11) or locoregional recurrence (HR, 0.53; P = .18); no significant findings occurred for the short versus intermediate group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings suggest that delaying surgery may improve tumor regression and decrease risk of distant metastasis but increase surgical complexity,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the reported improvements in tumor regression and systemic recurrence in the long-interval group were unexpectedly not followed by improved [overall survival].”

SOURCE:

F. Borja de Lacy, MD, PhD, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, led the study, published online in JAMA Surgery, with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s main limitation was its retrospective design, which could have resulted in missing or inconsistent data, as well as the short follow-up time.
• Decisions about time interval were based more on professional preference rather than specific tumor characteristics.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. de Lacy has reported no relevant financial relationships. No outside funding source was disclosed.

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

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.