MDedge Neurology

AUSTIN, TEX. – Self-treatment of migraines using cannabis can be effective but comes at risk of significant side effects, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial of cannabis products in migraine. The study also suggests that typical recreational doses may be higher than needed, and that products with a mixture of THC and CBD might limit adverse effects, according to lead author Nathaniel Schuster, MD.

“Patients are using cannabis on their own, treating themselves without us having known whether this is effective in a placebo-controlled study. Knowing that there’s a lot of interest in THC and CBD, [it would be useful to know] whether one or both might be effective, as well as a mix,” said Dr. Schuster in an interview. He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Dr. Schuster and colleagues tested a cannabis product with 6% THC based on prior studies showing efficacy of that concentration for other pain conditions, according to Dr. Schuster, who is an associate professor and associate clinical director at the University of California, San Diego, center for pain medicine. He added that the study is the first randomized, controlled trial of cannabis in migraine patients that he is aware of. “It’s just hard to do this research. It’s very regulated. We had to go through a lot of government approvals to do this,” he said.

The study produced a key message. “I think one of the really important things for patients to take from this is that recreational doses are probably not necessary. The doses that we studied are lower than people use recreationally. Patients who are self-treating on their own right now are probably using higher doses than they need for the purpose of treating migraine,” said Dr. Schuster.

He also pointed out that the results offer potential insight into reducing side effects. “If [patients] are using THC only, they can hopefully have less of the side effects and tolerate it better by using a THC-CBD mix,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Four therapies tested

Participants in the study could self-treat up to four migraine attacks. They were instructed to treat each migraine with one of four therapies, which were provided in a randomized, double-blind order: These included a 6% THC formulation; a mix of THC (6%) and CBD (11%); a CBD 11% formulation; and placebo cannabis with THC and CBD removed by alcohol extraction. Participants filled out a questionnaire 2 hours after treatment, and were then allowed to use rescue treatments if needed, but not additional cannabis. The age range was from 21 to 65, and inclusion criteria included 2-23 migraine days per month. Exclusion criteria included a positive urine test for THC, barbiturates, opioids, oxycodone, or methadone prior to enrollment.

The study included 73 patients who treated a migraine during the study period. There were 247 migraine attacks treated. Among participants, the median age was 41, 82.6% were female and 17.4% were male, and the median body mass index was 26.0 kg/m². Participants experienced a median of 15 headache days per month and 6 migraine days per month, and 27.2% had chronic migraine.

At 2 hours, pain relief occurred in 48.3% of placebo treatments, 54.4% of the CBD treatments, 70.5% of the THC treatments (P = .007 versus placebo), and 69.0% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .014 versus placebo). At 2 hours, pain freedom occurred in 15.5% of the placebo treatments, 24.6% of the CBD treatments, 29.5% of the THC treatments, and 36.2% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .010 versus placebo). At 2 hours, freedom from most bothersome symptoms (MBS) occurred in 36.2% of the placebo treatments, 43.9% of the CBD treatments, 49.2% of the THC treatments, and 62.1% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .004 versus placebo).

To achieve at least a 20% improvement in pain relief, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat (NNT) with THC/CBD was five. For at least a 20% improvement in pain freedom, the NNT was five, and for a 20% improvement in freedom from most bothersome symptoms, the NNT was four.

Treatment with THC was associated with the highest frequency of any adverse event (31.0%), followed by CBD and THC/CBD (19.6% each), and placebo (5.0%). At 2 hours, 18.0% of the THC treatments had an adverse event, compared with 7.0% of the CBD treatments, 6.9% of the THC/CBD treatments, and 5.2% of placebo treatments.

The number needed to treat of five for pain relief was encouraging, according to Dr. Schuster. “It’s better than some other things, but at the expense of side effects. The side effects that we see are certainly higher with cannabis than it is with other migraine treatments that patients certainly should be using beforehand. There’s also a risk of addiction, which is a concern,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Useful data but questions remain

Having a clinical trial will be useful for physicians, said Ali Ezzati, MD, who attended the session. “I think it was an impressive study. Obviously, there are some challenges with cannabis studies in the medical world because of the stigma that comes with it and also the possibility of inducing addiction [and] promoting that to patients. But at the end of the day, it’s very, very common for our patients to ask us about cannabinoid use, and we really don’t have data on it. I’m glad that there are people who are running these studies so we will be able at least to answer our patients,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology at University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ezzati also noted that clinical trials have investigated cannabinoid use for other types of pain, such as arthritic or generalized pain. Although he said that there are some clinical similarities between other types of pain and migraine, the pathophysiology appears to be unique, which means that more work needs to be done. “It will probably take 5 or 10 years to have sufficient data to give patients a direct path for using (cannabinoids),” said Dr. Ezzati.

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation. Dr. Schuster has consulted with Schedule 1 Therapeutics and Vectura Fertin. Dr. Ezzati has no relevant financial disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Self-treatment of migraines using cannabis can be effective but comes at risk of significant side effects, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial of cannabis products in migraine. The study also suggests that typical recreational doses may be higher than needed, and that products with a mixture of THC and CBD might limit adverse effects, according to lead author Nathaniel Schuster, MD.

“Patients are using cannabis on their own, treating themselves without us having known whether this is effective in a placebo-controlled study. Knowing that there’s a lot of interest in THC and CBD, [it would be useful to know] whether one or both might be effective, as well as a mix,” said Dr. Schuster in an interview. He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Dr. Schuster and colleagues tested a cannabis product with 6% THC based on prior studies showing efficacy of that concentration for other pain conditions, according to Dr. Schuster, who is an associate professor and associate clinical director at the University of California, San Diego, center for pain medicine. He added that the study is the first randomized, controlled trial of cannabis in migraine patients that he is aware of. “It’s just hard to do this research. It’s very regulated. We had to go through a lot of government approvals to do this,” he said.

The study produced a key message. “I think one of the really important things for patients to take from this is that recreational doses are probably not necessary. The doses that we studied are lower than people use recreationally. Patients who are self-treating on their own right now are probably using higher doses than they need for the purpose of treating migraine,” said Dr. Schuster.

He also pointed out that the results offer potential insight into reducing side effects. “If [patients] are using THC only, they can hopefully have less of the side effects and tolerate it better by using a THC-CBD mix,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Four therapies tested

Participants in the study could self-treat up to four migraine attacks. They were instructed to treat each migraine with one of four therapies, which were provided in a randomized, double-blind order: These included a 6% THC formulation; a mix of THC (6%) and CBD (11%); a CBD 11% formulation; and placebo cannabis with THC and CBD removed by alcohol extraction. Participants filled out a questionnaire 2 hours after treatment, and were then allowed to use rescue treatments if needed, but not additional cannabis. The age range was from 21 to 65, and inclusion criteria included 2-23 migraine days per month. Exclusion criteria included a positive urine test for THC, barbiturates, opioids, oxycodone, or methadone prior to enrollment.

The study included 73 patients who treated a migraine during the study period. There were 247 migraine attacks treated. Among participants, the median age was 41, 82.6% were female and 17.4% were male, and the median body mass index was 26.0 kg/m². Participants experienced a median of 15 headache days per month and 6 migraine days per month, and 27.2% had chronic migraine.

At 2 hours, pain relief occurred in 48.3% of placebo treatments, 54.4% of the CBD treatments, 70.5% of the THC treatments (P = .007 versus placebo), and 69.0% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .014 versus placebo). At 2 hours, pain freedom occurred in 15.5% of the placebo treatments, 24.6% of the CBD treatments, 29.5% of the THC treatments, and 36.2% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .010 versus placebo). At 2 hours, freedom from most bothersome symptoms (MBS) occurred in 36.2% of the placebo treatments, 43.9% of the CBD treatments, 49.2% of the THC treatments, and 62.1% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .004 versus placebo).

To achieve at least a 20% improvement in pain relief, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat (NNT) with THC/CBD was five. For at least a 20% improvement in pain freedom, the NNT was five, and for a 20% improvement in freedom from most bothersome symptoms, the NNT was four.

Treatment with THC was associated with the highest frequency of any adverse event (31.0%), followed by CBD and THC/CBD (19.6% each), and placebo (5.0%). At 2 hours, 18.0% of the THC treatments had an adverse event, compared with 7.0% of the CBD treatments, 6.9% of the THC/CBD treatments, and 5.2% of placebo treatments.

The number needed to treat of five for pain relief was encouraging, according to Dr. Schuster. “It’s better than some other things, but at the expense of side effects. The side effects that we see are certainly higher with cannabis than it is with other migraine treatments that patients certainly should be using beforehand. There’s also a risk of addiction, which is a concern,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Useful data but questions remain

Having a clinical trial will be useful for physicians, said Ali Ezzati, MD, who attended the session. “I think it was an impressive study. Obviously, there are some challenges with cannabis studies in the medical world because of the stigma that comes with it and also the possibility of inducing addiction [and] promoting that to patients. But at the end of the day, it’s very, very common for our patients to ask us about cannabinoid use, and we really don’t have data on it. I’m glad that there are people who are running these studies so we will be able at least to answer our patients,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology at University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ezzati also noted that clinical trials have investigated cannabinoid use for other types of pain, such as arthritic or generalized pain. Although he said that there are some clinical similarities between other types of pain and migraine, the pathophysiology appears to be unique, which means that more work needs to be done. “It will probably take 5 or 10 years to have sufficient data to give patients a direct path for using (cannabinoids),” said Dr. Ezzati.

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation. Dr. Schuster has consulted with Schedule 1 Therapeutics and Vectura Fertin. Dr. Ezzati has no relevant financial disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Self-treatment of migraines using cannabis can be effective but comes at risk of significant side effects, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial of cannabis products in migraine. The study also suggests that typical recreational doses may be higher than needed, and that products with a mixture of THC and CBD might limit adverse effects, according to lead author Nathaniel Schuster, MD.

“Patients are using cannabis on their own, treating themselves without us having known whether this is effective in a placebo-controlled study. Knowing that there’s a lot of interest in THC and CBD, [it would be useful to know] whether one or both might be effective, as well as a mix,” said Dr. Schuster in an interview. He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Dr. Schuster and colleagues tested a cannabis product with 6% THC based on prior studies showing efficacy of that concentration for other pain conditions, according to Dr. Schuster, who is an associate professor and associate clinical director at the University of California, San Diego, center for pain medicine. He added that the study is the first randomized, controlled trial of cannabis in migraine patients that he is aware of. “It’s just hard to do this research. It’s very regulated. We had to go through a lot of government approvals to do this,” he said.

The study produced a key message. “I think one of the really important things for patients to take from this is that recreational doses are probably not necessary. The doses that we studied are lower than people use recreationally. Patients who are self-treating on their own right now are probably using higher doses than they need for the purpose of treating migraine,” said Dr. Schuster.

He also pointed out that the results offer potential insight into reducing side effects. “If [patients] are using THC only, they can hopefully have less of the side effects and tolerate it better by using a THC-CBD mix,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Four therapies tested

Participants in the study could self-treat up to four migraine attacks. They were instructed to treat each migraine with one of four therapies, which were provided in a randomized, double-blind order: These included a 6% THC formulation; a mix of THC (6%) and CBD (11%); a CBD 11% formulation; and placebo cannabis with THC and CBD removed by alcohol extraction. Participants filled out a questionnaire 2 hours after treatment, and were then allowed to use rescue treatments if needed, but not additional cannabis. The age range was from 21 to 65, and inclusion criteria included 2-23 migraine days per month. Exclusion criteria included a positive urine test for THC, barbiturates, opioids, oxycodone, or methadone prior to enrollment.

The study included 73 patients who treated a migraine during the study period. There were 247 migraine attacks treated. Among participants, the median age was 41, 82.6% were female and 17.4% were male, and the median body mass index was 26.0 kg/m². Participants experienced a median of 15 headache days per month and 6 migraine days per month, and 27.2% had chronic migraine.

At 2 hours, pain relief occurred in 48.3% of placebo treatments, 54.4% of the CBD treatments, 70.5% of the THC treatments (P = .007 versus placebo), and 69.0% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .014 versus placebo). At 2 hours, pain freedom occurred in 15.5% of the placebo treatments, 24.6% of the CBD treatments, 29.5% of the THC treatments, and 36.2% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .010 versus placebo). At 2 hours, freedom from most bothersome symptoms (MBS) occurred in 36.2% of the placebo treatments, 43.9% of the CBD treatments, 49.2% of the THC treatments, and 62.1% of the THC/CBD treatments (P = .004 versus placebo).

To achieve at least a 20% improvement in pain relief, compared with placebo, the number needed to treat (NNT) with THC/CBD was five. For at least a 20% improvement in pain freedom, the NNT was five, and for a 20% improvement in freedom from most bothersome symptoms, the NNT was four.

Treatment with THC was associated with the highest frequency of any adverse event (31.0%), followed by CBD and THC/CBD (19.6% each), and placebo (5.0%). At 2 hours, 18.0% of the THC treatments had an adverse event, compared with 7.0% of the CBD treatments, 6.9% of the THC/CBD treatments, and 5.2% of placebo treatments.

The number needed to treat of five for pain relief was encouraging, according to Dr. Schuster. “It’s better than some other things, but at the expense of side effects. The side effects that we see are certainly higher with cannabis than it is with other migraine treatments that patients certainly should be using beforehand. There’s also a risk of addiction, which is a concern,” said Dr. Schuster.
 

Useful data but questions remain

Having a clinical trial will be useful for physicians, said Ali Ezzati, MD, who attended the session. “I think it was an impressive study. Obviously, there are some challenges with cannabis studies in the medical world because of the stigma that comes with it and also the possibility of inducing addiction [and] promoting that to patients. But at the end of the day, it’s very, very common for our patients to ask us about cannabinoid use, and we really don’t have data on it. I’m glad that there are people who are running these studies so we will be able at least to answer our patients,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology at University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ezzati also noted that clinical trials have investigated cannabinoid use for other types of pain, such as arthritic or generalized pain. Although he said that there are some clinical similarities between other types of pain and migraine, the pathophysiology appears to be unique, which means that more work needs to be done. “It will probably take 5 or 10 years to have sufficient data to give patients a direct path for using (cannabinoids),” said Dr. Ezzati.

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation. Dr. Schuster has consulted with Schedule 1 Therapeutics and Vectura Fertin. Dr. Ezzati has no relevant financial disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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

TOPLINE:

Vortioxetine significantly improves depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, functioning, and quality of life at 12 weeks in patients with both major depressive disorder (MDD) and early-stage dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multicenter MEMORY study included 82 subjects with MDD and early-stage dementia, mean age 70.3 years, mostly female (66%) and White (95%).
• Vortioxetine, a modulator of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor activity and an inhibitor of the 5-HT transporter, initiated at 5 mg/day (recommended starting dose in older adults) with the dose up-titrated to 10 mg/day after a week and flexible dosing thereafter.
• Depression was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and cognition with the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the severity of depressive symptoms, as measured by MADRS total score (the primary outcome), at all assessment time points (P < .0001).
• Improvements in depressive symptoms were irrespective of dementia type.
• There were also significant improvements in DSST total score (P < .0001) and in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
• Vortioxetine was well tolerated; side effects, including nausea and abdominal pain, were mostly mild to moderate.

IN PRACTICE:

“Vortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks” the researchers noted. 

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Michael Cronquist Christensen from pharmaceutical company H. Lundbeck, Valby, Denmark, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of Affective Disorders.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is open label and lacked a control group. Learning effects were possible, which could contribute to improved cognitive performance, although significant improvement on the RAVLT was not observed until week 4, suggesting earning effects were minimal.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by H. Lundbeck. Mr. Christensen is an employee of H. Lundbeck.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Some patients continually cancel their appointments, ignore your medical directions, treat your staff rudely, or send you harassing emails.

Do you have to tolerate their behavior?

No, these are all appropriate reasons to terminate patients, attorneys say. Patients also can be dismissed for misleading doctors about their past medical history, chronic drug-seeking, displaying threatening or seductive behavior toward staff members or physicians, or any criminal behavior in the office, experts say.

But even if a reason seems legitimate, that doesn’t make it legal. Doctors should consider whether the reason is legal, said Chicago-area attorney Ericka Adler, JD, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, who advises doctors about terminating patients.

“Although a physician may think a reason to terminate a patient is legitimate, they should always be mindful of whether there is a legal concern at issue and consult with counsel if they’re unsure,” Ms. Adler said.

Terminating patients for an “illegal” reason such as discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation – even if couched as a legitimate patient issue – could open the practice to a lawsuit, Ms. Adler said.

Doctors also want to avoid patient abandonment claims by talking to the patient about problems and documenting them as they arise. If they can’t be resolved, doctors should ensure that there’s continuity of care when patients change physicians, said Ms. Adler.

About 90% of physicians have dismissed at least one patient during their career, according to a study of nearly 800 primary care practices. The most common reasons were legitimate: a patient was “extremely disruptive and/or behaved inappropriately toward clinicians or staff”; a patient had “violated chronic pain and controlled substance policies”; and a patient had “repeatedly missed appointments.” 

Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a family physician at South Georgia Medical Center in rural Nashville, said she has dismissed about 15 of 3,000 patients she has seen in the past 3 years at the clinic. Before she dismisses a patient, she looks at whether there has been a pattern of behavior and tries to talk to them about the problem first to find out if there are other reasons for it.

She also gives patients a warning: If the unacceptable behavior continues, it will lead to their dismissal.
 

When patients cross a line

Dr. O’Kane warned an elderly man who used the N-word with her that she wouldn’t tolerate that language in her office. Then, when he later called her front office employee the N-word, she decided to dismiss him.

“I said, ‘That’s it, you can’t say that to someone in this office. I already told you once, and you did it again. I’m sorry, you have to find another doctor,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

Another patient crossed a line when she missed four appointments, refused to come in, and kept sending Dr. O’Kane long messages on MyChart demanding medications and advice. One message was fairly obtrusive: “If you don’t give me something stronger for my nerves TODAY, I am going to LOSE MY MIND!!!” Dr. O’Kane said the patient wrote.

“I then told her that’s not how I run my practice and that she needed to find someone else.”

Another common reason doctors dismiss patients is for nonpayment, says Ms. Adler.

Recently, however, some patients have also begun demanding their money back from doctors for services already received and billed because they were unhappy about something that occurred at the doctor’s office, said Ms. Adler.

“I advise doctors to respond: ‘We disagree that you didn’t get the service, but we will give you your money back, and we’re also terminating you from our practice.’  At that point, the doctor-patient relationship has become impossible,” said Ms. Adler.
 

How to dismiss difficult patients ethically and legally

According to the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, a physician may not discontinue treatment of a patient if further treatment is medically indicated without giving the patient reasonable notice and sufficient opportunity to make alternative arrangements for care.

Terminating a patient abruptly without transferring their care could lead to a claim of patient abandonment and the physician being called before a licensing board for potentially violating the state’s Medical Practice Act, said Ms. Adler.

Doctors can take these six steps to set the stage for dismissal and avoid a claim of patient abandonment.

1. Create written policies. Medical practices can describe the rules and behavior they expect from patients in these policies, which can cover, for example, payment, treating staff with courtesy, and medications. “When the rules are in writing and patients sign off on them, that gives doctors a certain comfort level in being able to refer to them and say that the patient hasn’t been compliant,” said Ms. Adler.

She also recommends that your practice create a policy that doctors should let the patient know about their concerns and meet with them to discuss the problem before receiving a termination letter.

2. Document any consistent problems you’re having with a patient. When you start having problems with a patient, you should document when the problem occurred, how often it occurred, any discussions with the patient about the problem, warnings you gave the patient, and if and when you decided to terminate the patient.

3. Meet with the patient to discuss the problem. “Talking and meeting with a patient also allows the physician to assess whether there’s another issue. For example, is there a mental health concern? Is there a financial reason for nonpayment or no-shows? There are multiple benefits to finding out what the problem is,” said Ms. Adler.

Once you’ve decided to terminate a patient, here’s what you should do:

4. Allow enough time for the patient to find alternative care. Ms. Adler recommends giving patients 30 days’ notice and that physicians offer to provide emergency care during that time. However, if the patient is undergoing treatment or has other challenges, more time may be needed to transfer care.

“It’s important to consider the patient’s context – if the patient is receiving cancer treatment, or is in a late stage of pregnancy, or lives in a rural area where few specialists are available, you may want to treat them longer – at least until they finish their treatment,” said Ms. Adler. Also, states may have their own requirements about minimum notice periods, she said.

5. Provide patients with written notice that you intend to terminate their care. Ms. Adler recommends that each letter be tailored to the patient’s specific circumstances. “You could spell out a patient’s history of noncompliance or nonpayment or inappropriate conduct because it’s been documented and the patient is already aware of it from a previous discussion,” she said.

Ms. Adler also recommends that doctors consult with legal counsel when in doubt or if contacted by the patient’s lawyer. Some lawyers will draft the termination letters, she said.

6. Include the following information in the written letter: The date that they will no longer receive care, how they can obtain copies of their medical records, and how they can find a new physician by providing contact information for a state medical association or similar organization, which often maintains a database of clinicians by specialty and location.

The letter should also state that the doctor will provide emergency care during the 30 days. Ms. Adler also recommends sending the notice by certified mail.

Dr. O’Kane said she may be more likely to give patients a second chance because she practices in a rural underserved area, and she understands that her patients don’t have many other options for health care. She also has developed a reputation for being willing to take on difficult patients that other physicians didn’t want to deal with, she said.

She encourages physicians to talk to patients to find out why, for example, they may not be compliant with medications.

“The patient may say, ‘I had to choose between paying for medications and putting food on the table,’ ” said Dr. O’Kane.

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

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

Low-calorie tastes sweeter with a little salt

Diet and sugar-free foods and drinks seem like a good idea, but it’s hard to get past that strange aftertaste, right? It’s the calling card for the noncaloric aspartame- and stevia-containing sweeteners that we consume to make us feel like we can have the best of both worlds.

That weird lingering taste can be a total turn-off for some (raises hand), but researchers have found an almost facepalm solution to the not-so-sweet problem, and it’s salt.

Jason Tuinstra/Unsplash

Now, the concept of sweet and salty is not a far-fetched partnership when it comes to snack consumption (try M&Ms in your popcorn). The researchers at Almendra, a manufacturer of stevia sweeteners, put that iconic flavor pair to the test by adding mineral salts that have some nutritional value to lessen the effect of a stevia compound, rebaudioside A, found in noncaloric sweeteners.

The researchers added in magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride separately to lessen rebaudioside A’s intensity, but they needed so much salt that it killed the sweet taste completely. A blend of the three mineral salts, however, reduced the lingering taste by 79% and improved the real sugar-like taste. The researchers tried this blend in reduced-calorie orange juice and a citrus-flavored soft drink, improving the taste in both.

The salty and sweet match comes in for the win once again. This time helping against the fight of obesity instead of making it worse.

Pseudomonas’ Achilles’ heel is more of an Achilles’ genetic switch

Today, on the long-awaited return of “Bacteria vs. the World,” we meet one of the rock stars of infectious disease.

LOTME: Through the use of imaginary technology, we’re talking to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thanks for joining us on such short notice, after Neisseria gonorrhoeae canceled at the last minute.

P. aeruginosa: No problem. I think we can all guess what that little devil is up to.

Benoit-Joseph Laventie, Biozentrum, University of Basel

LOTME: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem for our species. What makes you so hard to fight?

P. aeruginosa: We’ve been trying to keep that a secret, actually, but now that researchers in Switzerland and Denmark seem to have figured it out, I guess it’s okay for me to spill the beans.

LOTME: Beans? What do beans have to do with it?

P. aeruginosa: Nothing, it’s just a colloquial expression that means I’m sharing previously private information.

LOTME: Sure, we knew that. Please, continue your spilling.

P. aeruginosa: The secret is … Well, let’s just say we were a little worried when the Clash released “Should I Stay or Should I Go” back in the 1980s.

LOTME: The Clash? Now we’re really confused.

P. aeruginosa: The answer to their question, “Should I stay or should I go? is yes. Successful invasion of a human is all about division of labor. “While one fraction of the bacterial population adheres to the mucosal surface and forms a biofilm, the other subpopulation spreads to distant tissue sites,” is how the investigators described it. We can increase surface colonization by using a “job-sharing” process, they said, and even resist antibiotics because most of us remain in the protective biofilm.

LOTME: And they say you guys don’t have brains.

P. aeruginosa: But wait, there’s more. We don’t just divide the labor randomly. After the initial colonization we form two functionally distinct subpopulations. One has high levels of the bacterial signaling molecule c-di-GMP and stays put to work on the biofilm. The other group, with low levels of c-di-GMP, heads out to the surrounding tissue to continue the colonization. As project leader Urs Jenal put it, “By identifying the genetic switch, we have tracked down the Achilles heel of the pathogen.”

LOTME: Pretty clever stuff, for humans, anyway.

P. aeruginosa: We agree, but now that you know our secret, we can’t let you share it.

LOTME: Wait! The journal article’s already been published. Your secret is out. You can’t stop that by infecting me.

P. aeruginosa: True enough, but are you familiar with the fable of the scorpion and the frog? It’s our nature.

LOTME: Nooooo! N. gonorrhoeae wouldn’t have done this!
 

What a pain in the Butt

Businesses rise and businesses fall. We all know that one cursed location, that spot in town where we see businesses move in and close up in a matter of months. At the same time, though, there are also businesses that have been around as long as anyone can remember, pillars of the community.

Corydon, IN., likely has a few such long-lived shops, but it is officially down one 70-year-old family business as of late April, with the unfortunate passing of beloved local pharmacy Butt Drugs. Prescription pick-up in rear.

Bildflut/Wikimedia Commons

The business dates back to 1952, when it was founded as William H. Butt Drugs. We’re sure William Butt was never teased about his last name. Nope. No one would ever do that. After he passed the store to his children, it underwent a stint as Butt Rexall Drugs. When the shop was passed down to its third-generation and ultimately final owner, Katie Butt Beckort, she decided to simplify the name. Get right down to the bottom of things, as it were.

Butt Drugs was a popular spot, featuring an old-school soda fountain and themed souvenirs. According to Ms. Butt Beckort, people would come from miles away to buy “I love Butt Drugs” T-shirts, magnets, and so on. Yes, they knew perfectly well what they were sitting on.

So, if was such a hit, why did it close? Butt Drugs may have a hilarious name and merchandise to match, but the pharmacy portion of the pharmacy had been losing money for years. You know, the actual point of the business. As with so many things, we can blame it on the insurance companies. More than half the drugs that passed through Butt Drugs’ doors were sold at a loss, because the insurance companies refused to reimburse the store more than the wholesale price of the drug. Not even a good butt drug could clear up that financial diarrhea.

And so, we’ve lost Butt Drugs forever. Spicy food enthusiasts, coffee drinkers, and all patrons of Taco Bell, take a moment to reflect and mourn on what you’ve lost. No more Butt Drugs to relieve your suffering. A true kick in the butt indeed.

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

An influential panel proposed capping Medicare Part B pay for some drugs, arguing this would remove financial incentives to use more costly medicines when there are less expensive equivalents.

Medical groups have objected to both this recommendation from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the panel’s underlying premise. MedPAC said financial as well as clinical factors can come into play in clinicians’ choices of drugs for patients.

In an interview, Christina Downey, MD, chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the American College of Rheumatology, said physicians in her field cannot switch patients’ medicines to try to make a profit.

“Patients only respond to the drugs that they respond to,” Dr. Downey said. “It’s frankly very insulting to say that physicians just force patients to go on medicines that are going to make them a bunch of money.”

In a June report to Congress, MedPAC recommended reducing the add-on payment for many drugs given in hospitals and clinics, which are thus covered by Part B, as part of a package of suggestions for addressing rising costs. Part B drug spending grew about 9% annually between 2009 and 2021, rising from $15.4 billion to $42.9 billion, MedPAC said.

Medicare’s current Part B drug pricing model starts with the reported average sales price (ASP) and then adds about 4.3% or 6%, depending on current budget-sequester law, to the cost of medicines.

MedPAC members voted 17-0 in April in favor of a general recommendation to revise the Part B payment approach. In the June report, MedPAC fleshes out this idea. It mentions a model in which the add-on Part B payment would be the lesser of either 6% of the ASP, 3% plus $24, or $220.

The majority of Part B drug administrations are for very low-priced drugs, MedPAC said. But for some of the more costly ones, annual prices can be more than $400,000 per patient, and future launch prices may be even higher for certain types of products, such as gene therapies, MedPAC said.

“There is no evidence that the costs of a drug’s administration are proportionate to the price of the drug,” MedPAC said.

Concerns about how well Medicare covers the cost of drug administration should be addressed through other pathways, such as the American Medical

Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), MedPAC said. AMA’s RUC advises the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the physician fee schedule.

Congress is not obliged to act on or to even consider MedPAC’s work. In general, lawmakers and CMS often pay heed to the panel’s recommendations, sometimes incorporating them into new policy.

But this new MedPAC Part B recommendation has drawn strong opposition, similar to the response to a 2016 CMS plan to cut the Part B add-on payment. That plan, which CMS later abandoned, would have cut the markup on Part B drugs to 2.5% and added a flat fee to cover administration costs.
 

Why not focus on PBMs instead?

The timing of the MedPAC recommendation is poor, given that CMS already is trying to implement the Inflation Reduction Act and create a new system of direct Medicare drug price negotiations, as ordered by Congress, said Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, a rheumatologist based in New Orleans.

A better approach for lowering drug prices would be to focus more on the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), said Dr. Feldman, who also is vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations. A pending bipartisan Senate bill, for example, would prohibit PBM compensation based on the price of a drug as a condition of entering into a contract with a Medicare Part D plan.

Congress needs to take steps to unlink the profits of PBMs from higher drug prices, Dr. Feldman said.

“Until that happens, we can put all the lipstick we want on this big pig, but it’s not going to really fix the problem,” she said.
 

Reduced pay for drugs acquired through 340B program?

In an interview about the new MedPAC proposal, Ted Okon, executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, urged renewed attention to what he sees as unintended consequences of the 340B discount drug program.

Under this program, certain hospitals can acquire drugs at steeply reduced prices, but they are not obliged to share those discounts with patients. Hospitals that participate in the 340B program can gain funds when patients and their insurers, including Medicare, pay more for the medicines hospitals and other organizations acquired with the 340B discount. Hospitals say they use the money from the 340B program to expand resources in their communities.

But rapid growth of the program in recent years has led to questions, especially about the role of contract pharmacies that manage the program. Congress created the 340B program in 1992 as a workaround to then new rules on Medicaid drug coverage.

In 2021, participating hospitals and clinics and organizations purchased about $44 billion worth of medicines through the 340B drug program. This was an increase of 16% from the previous year, according to a report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. The number of sites, including hospitals and pharmacies, enrolled in the 340B program rose from 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 by 2020, the report said.

MedPAC in 2016 urged CMS to reduce the amount Medicare pays for drugs acquired through the 340B program. CMS did so during the Trump administration, a policy later defended by the Biden administration.

But the U.S. Supreme Court last year said Medicare erred in its approach to making this cut, as earlier reported. Federal law required that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a survey to support such a step, and HHS did not do this, the court said. CMS thus was ordered to return Medicare to the ASP+6% payment model for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program.

In the June report, though, MedPAC stuck by its 2016 recommendation that Medicare reduce its payments for drugs purchased through the 340B discount program despite this setback.

“We continue to believe that this approach is appropriate, and the specific level of payment reduction could be considered further as newer data become available,” MedPAC said.
 

Hospital, PhRMA split

Hospitals would certainly contest any renewed bid by CMS to drop Medicare’s pay for drugs purchased through the 340B program. The American Hospital Association objected to the MedPAC proposal regarding the add-on payment in Part B drug pricing.

MedPAC commissioners discussed this idea at a January meeting, prompting a February letter from the AHA to the panel. Like Dr. Feldman, AHA said it would be “premature” to launch into a revision of Part B drug pricing while the impact of the IRA on drug prices was still unclear.

AHA also noted that a reduction in Part B drug reimbursement would “shift the responsibility for the rapid increase in drug prices away from drug manufacturers, and instead places the burden on hospitals and patients.”

But the AHA gave a much warmer reception to another proposal MedPAC considered this year and that it included in its June report, which is a plan to address the high cost of certain drugs of as yet unconfirmed clinical benefit.

In April, the AHA said it supports a move toward a “value-based approach” in certain cases in which first-in-class medicines are sold under U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approvals. Medicare could then cap payment for such drugs that have excessively high launch prices and uncertain clinical benefit, AHA said.

In the June report, MedPAC recommended that Medicare be able to place such a limit on Part B payments in certain cases, including ones in which companies do not meet FDA deadlines for postmarketing confirmatory trials.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) objected to this proposed change. The trade group for drugmakers said the FDA often revises and extends enrollment milestones for pending confirmatory trials when companies hit snags, such as challenges in enrolling patients, PhRMA said.

Reducing Part B payment for drugs for which confirmatory trials have been delayed would have a “disproportionate impact” on smaller and rural communities, where independent practices struggle to keep their doors open as it is, PhRMA spokeswoman Nicole Longo wrote in a blog post.

“If physicians can’t afford to administer a medicine, then they won’t and that means their patients won’t have access to them either,” Ms. Longo wrote.

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

AUSTIN, TEX. – A new machine-learning analysis of a large group of migraine patients has identified subgroups that share both clinical and therapeutic response traits. The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.

“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.

The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
 

Machine learning reveals clusters

The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.

The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).

There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.

Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.

She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.

Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

AUSTIN, TEX. – A new machine-learning analysis of a large group of migraine patients has identified subgroups that share both clinical and therapeutic response traits. The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.

“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.

The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
 

Machine learning reveals clusters

The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.

The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).

There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.

Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.

She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.

Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

AUSTIN, TEX. – A new machine-learning analysis of a large group of migraine patients has identified subgroups that share both clinical and therapeutic response traits. The findings could point to new therapeutic strategies, according to study author Ali Ezzati, MD.

“A lot of diagnostic criteria that we have in the migraine world come from consensus groups of experts, and based on their experience and available data. They classify different types of headache and then on top of that different types of migraine. Unfortunately, this type of classification does not necessarily lead to having very homogeneous groups,” said Dr. Ezzati, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Migraines are generally categorized as episodic (0-14 headache days per month) or chronic (15 or more per month), or as with or without aura. But these broad categories fail to capture the true diversity of migraine, according to Dr. Ezzati, and this may contribute to the fact that response to migraine therapy hovers around 60%. “We feel that the key to improving therapeutic efficacy is to identify individuals who are more homogeneous, more similar to each other, so that when we give a treatment, it is specifically targeting the underlying pathophysiology that those people have,” said Dr. Ezzati, who is an associate professor of neurology and director of the neuroinformatics program at University of California, Irvine.

The analysis revealed some clinically interesting results, said Dr. Ezzati. “For example, allodynia is a symptom that is not particularly used for classification of different types of migraine. There was a specific group that was very high in allodynia, and they were not very responsive to treatments, so that might be a [group] that people have to focus on. Also, we talk a lot about comorbidities in migraine, but we don’t talk about how these comorbidities affect the therapeutic strategies and treatment response to specific medications. We showed that people who have depression are actually less responsive than other groups to treatments, especially prescription medications,” he said.
 

Machine learning reveals clusters

The researchers analyzed data from 4,423 patients drawn from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, which was conducted every year between 2005 and 2009. They included adult patients who filled out surveys in both 2006 and 2007. The study population was 83.7% female and had a mean age of 46.8 years, and 6.4% had chronic migraine. The researchers then used a machine-learning based self-organizing map to group patients into similar clusters.

The algorithm produced five such groups: Cluster 1 had the lowest symptom severity, and 0.6% had chronic migraine. Cluster 2 had mild symptom severity with no chronic migraine. Cluster 3 had moderate symptom severity and a high prevalence of allodynia (88.5%, vs. 63.4% overall, P < .001) and no chronic migraine. Cluster 4 had a high frequency of depressive symptoms (63.1% vs. 19.8% overall, P < .001) and 5.2% had chronic migraine. Cluster 5 had frequent and severe migraines, and most (83.0%) had chronic migraine (P < .001).

There were some other broader trends. Triptans were more commonly used in clusters 2 (25.6%), 3 (27.9%), and 5 (28.0%), but less so in cluster 4 (17.1%; P < .001). Pain freedom at 2 hours was most common in cluster 1 (53.1%), followed by cluster 2 (46.4%), but was significantly less frequent in clusters 3 (32.2%), 4 (32.2%), and 5 (34.7%; P < .001).
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Ezzati believes that machine learning and data analysis could point the way to a future of more tailored migraine therapies. “I think we have to in general go down the path of using more evidence and more data to inform us about individualized planning for patients. For that we need larger clinical studies and larger epidemiological studies to help us identify more homogeneous subtypes of patients that we can eventually target in clinical trials,” he said.

Catherine Chong, MD, who chaired the session where the research was presented, praised the study in an interview. “Episodic migraine and chronic migraine have been developed [as categories] by headache frequency per month, and it was basically based on consensus in committee. They made basically a determination that 15 and under migraine days would be episodic migraine and over would be chronic migraine. So they dichotomized migraine, in a way, based on what people thought in the field. Looking at the data freely, and letting the algorithm determine the different subtypes, and putting everybody with migraine in it, and having these groups naturally appear from the data, I think is fascinating,” Dr. Chong said.

She echoed Dr. Ezzati’s call for further research that could create even more subgroups. “Is it really truly the case that somebody with less than 15 migraine days [per month], that 14 migraines days would be so different than somebody with 15 or over, or 8? I think we need to look at it further to see whether there are additional subgroups within that data. I think there are probably more [groups identifiable] from different data that we have out there,” said Dr. Chong.

Dr. Ezzati has consulted for or been a reviewer or advisory board member for Corium, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mint Research, and Health Care Horizon Scanning System. He has received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Chong has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently, Canada announced new regulations on tobacco, with warnings printed on individual cigarettes, such as “poison in every puff.” This is on top of the packaging already required to have 75% of its space devoted to similar warnings, often with graphic pictures, of the potential consequences.

Make no mistake, I don’t like cigarettes and try to get smokers to quit.

But I have to wonder how successful this is going to be. I mean, you’d have to have lived under a rock for the last 70 years (or more) to not know that cigarettes (and tobacco in general) aren’t good for you, and can cause stroke, heart disease, and a multitude of cancers.

I suppose you could ban cigarettes, but that only opens up a black market. From 1920 to 1933 the United States set an example for the world with prohibition, showing how such an idea can backfire horribly.

Realistically, there are always going to be people making bad health decisions of one kind or another, including myself. Whether it’s tobacco, alcohol, or a cheeseburger and fries.

Tobacco, of course, has a much worse track record than that of the cheeseburger. We all have to eat, even though some choices are better than others. Tobacco has absolutely no biological necessity, as do food, air, and water.

But it’s remarkably addictive, not to mention profitable. Those factors will always guarantee it a place in society.

At this point, if people want to smoke, I have a hard time believing that they’re unaware of the health risks.

There’s a legitimate argument to be made in trying to keep people from starting. The teenage years, where we all tend to believe we’re immortal, are when a lot of habits (good and bad) form. If gruesome pictures and repeated warnings cut down on those numbers, then in the long run it’s a very good thing. Given that Canada’s goal is to cut tobacco use from 13% down to less than 5% by 2035, this could happen. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a side note, here in the United States tobacco use is 19% of the population. This is actually somewhat surprising to me, as a brief, not particularly scientific, review of my charts for the past few weeks found that less than 5% of my patients do it. So either some are lying or (more likely), it’s just the demographics of my practice area.

But at some point it doesn’t matter how many warnings or gory pictures people see, or where they encounter them. Some will keep smoking out of habit. Some because they actually like it. Some to be defiant. Some just because they can. And no amount of warnings is going to change their minds.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The composition of gut bacteria in people with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) differs from that of healthy people, a new study shows.

The findings open up the possibility of analyzing the gut microbiome to identify individuals at a higher risk for dementia and perhaps designing microbiome-altering preventive treatments to help stave off cognitive decline, researchers noted.

Study investigator Gautam Dantas, PhD, cautioned that it’s not known whether the gut is influencing the brain, or the brain is influencing the gut, “but this association is valuable to know in either case.

“It could be that the changes in the gut microbiome are just a readout of pathological changes in the brain. The other alternative is that the gut microbiome is contributing to AD, in which case, altering the gut microbiome with probiotics or fecal transfers might help change the course of the disease,” Dr. Dantas, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Stool test?

Multiple lines of evidence suggest a role for gut microbes in the evolution of AD pathogenesis. However, less is known about gut microbiome changes in the preclinical (presymptomatic) phase of AD.

To investigate, Dr. Dantas and colleagues studied 164 cognitively normal adults, 49 of whom had biomarker evidence of preclinical AD.

After the researchers accounted for clinical covariates and diet, those with preclinical AD had distinct gut microbial taxonomic profiles compared with their healthy controls.

The observed microbiome features correlated with amyloid and tau but not neurodegeneration biomarkers, “suggesting that the gut microbial community changes early in the disease process,” the researchers suggested.

They identified specific taxa that were associated with preclinical AD and including these microbiome features improved the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of machine learning classifiers for predicting preclinical AD status.

The findings suggest “markers in the stool might complement early screening measures for preclinical AD,” the researchers noted.

“The nice thing about using the gut microbiome as a screening tool is its simplicity and ease,” Beau Ances, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, at Washington University, St. Louis, said in the release.

“One day, individuals may be able to provide a stool sample and find out if they are at increased risk for developing AD. It would be much easier and less invasive and more accessible for a large proportion of the population, especially underrepresented groups, compared to brain scans or spinal taps,” Dr. Ances added.

The researchers have launched a 5-year follow-up study designed to help determine whether the differences in the gut microbiome are a cause or a result of the brain changes seen in early AD.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, cautioned that the study design means that it’s “not possible to prove one thing causes another. What it can show is that two or more aspects are in some way related, thus setting the stage for further research.”

Dr. Sexton noted that though the authors accounted for a number of variables in their models, including age, sex, race, education, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes, and observed no differences in intake of any major nutrient group, “it’s still not possible to rule out that additional factors beyond the variations in gut microbiome contributed to the changes in brain markers of Alzheimer’s.”

Dr. Sexton also noted that the study population is not representative of all people living with AD, with the vast majority of those with preclinical AD in the study being White.

“If these findings are replicated and confirmed in study groups that are representative of our communities, it is possible that gut microbiome signatures could be a further addition to the suite of diagnostic tools employed in certain settings,” Dr. Sexton said.

This research was supported by the Infection Disease Society of America Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, the Brennan Fund and the Paula and Rodger Riney Foundation. Dr. Dantas, Dr. Ances and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures.

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

The composition of gut bacteria in people with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) differs from that of healthy people, a new study shows.

The findings open up the possibility of analyzing the gut microbiome to identify individuals at a higher risk for dementia and perhaps designing microbiome-altering preventive treatments to help stave off cognitive decline, researchers noted.

Study investigator Gautam Dantas, PhD, cautioned that it’s not known whether the gut is influencing the brain, or the brain is influencing the gut, “but this association is valuable to know in either case.

“It could be that the changes in the gut microbiome are just a readout of pathological changes in the brain. The other alternative is that the gut microbiome is contributing to AD, in which case, altering the gut microbiome with probiotics or fecal transfers might help change the course of the disease,” Dr. Dantas, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Stool test?

Multiple lines of evidence suggest a role for gut microbes in the evolution of AD pathogenesis. However, less is known about gut microbiome changes in the preclinical (presymptomatic) phase of AD.

To investigate, Dr. Dantas and colleagues studied 164 cognitively normal adults, 49 of whom had biomarker evidence of preclinical AD.

After the researchers accounted for clinical covariates and diet, those with preclinical AD had distinct gut microbial taxonomic profiles compared with their healthy controls.

The observed microbiome features correlated with amyloid and tau but not neurodegeneration biomarkers, “suggesting that the gut microbial community changes early in the disease process,” the researchers suggested.

They identified specific taxa that were associated with preclinical AD and including these microbiome features improved the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of machine learning classifiers for predicting preclinical AD status.

The findings suggest “markers in the stool might complement early screening measures for preclinical AD,” the researchers noted.

“The nice thing about using the gut microbiome as a screening tool is its simplicity and ease,” Beau Ances, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, at Washington University, St. Louis, said in the release.

“One day, individuals may be able to provide a stool sample and find out if they are at increased risk for developing AD. It would be much easier and less invasive and more accessible for a large proportion of the population, especially underrepresented groups, compared to brain scans or spinal taps,” Dr. Ances added.

The researchers have launched a 5-year follow-up study designed to help determine whether the differences in the gut microbiome are a cause or a result of the brain changes seen in early AD.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, cautioned that the study design means that it’s “not possible to prove one thing causes another. What it can show is that two or more aspects are in some way related, thus setting the stage for further research.”

Dr. Sexton noted that though the authors accounted for a number of variables in their models, including age, sex, race, education, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes, and observed no differences in intake of any major nutrient group, “it’s still not possible to rule out that additional factors beyond the variations in gut microbiome contributed to the changes in brain markers of Alzheimer’s.”

Dr. Sexton also noted that the study population is not representative of all people living with AD, with the vast majority of those with preclinical AD in the study being White.

“If these findings are replicated and confirmed in study groups that are representative of our communities, it is possible that gut microbiome signatures could be a further addition to the suite of diagnostic tools employed in certain settings,” Dr. Sexton said.

This research was supported by the Infection Disease Society of America Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, the Brennan Fund and the Paula and Rodger Riney Foundation. Dr. Dantas, Dr. Ances and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures.

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

The composition of gut bacteria in people with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) differs from that of healthy people, a new study shows.

The findings open up the possibility of analyzing the gut microbiome to identify individuals at a higher risk for dementia and perhaps designing microbiome-altering preventive treatments to help stave off cognitive decline, researchers noted.

Study investigator Gautam Dantas, PhD, cautioned that it’s not known whether the gut is influencing the brain, or the brain is influencing the gut, “but this association is valuable to know in either case.

“It could be that the changes in the gut microbiome are just a readout of pathological changes in the brain. The other alternative is that the gut microbiome is contributing to AD, in which case, altering the gut microbiome with probiotics or fecal transfers might help change the course of the disease,” Dr. Dantas, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Stool test?

Multiple lines of evidence suggest a role for gut microbes in the evolution of AD pathogenesis. However, less is known about gut microbiome changes in the preclinical (presymptomatic) phase of AD.

To investigate, Dr. Dantas and colleagues studied 164 cognitively normal adults, 49 of whom had biomarker evidence of preclinical AD.

After the researchers accounted for clinical covariates and diet, those with preclinical AD had distinct gut microbial taxonomic profiles compared with their healthy controls.

The observed microbiome features correlated with amyloid and tau but not neurodegeneration biomarkers, “suggesting that the gut microbial community changes early in the disease process,” the researchers suggested.

They identified specific taxa that were associated with preclinical AD and including these microbiome features improved the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of machine learning classifiers for predicting preclinical AD status.

The findings suggest “markers in the stool might complement early screening measures for preclinical AD,” the researchers noted.

“The nice thing about using the gut microbiome as a screening tool is its simplicity and ease,” Beau Ances, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, at Washington University, St. Louis, said in the release.

“One day, individuals may be able to provide a stool sample and find out if they are at increased risk for developing AD. It would be much easier and less invasive and more accessible for a large proportion of the population, especially underrepresented groups, compared to brain scans or spinal taps,” Dr. Ances added.

The researchers have launched a 5-year follow-up study designed to help determine whether the differences in the gut microbiome are a cause or a result of the brain changes seen in early AD.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, cautioned that the study design means that it’s “not possible to prove one thing causes another. What it can show is that two or more aspects are in some way related, thus setting the stage for further research.”

Dr. Sexton noted that though the authors accounted for a number of variables in their models, including age, sex, race, education, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes, and observed no differences in intake of any major nutrient group, “it’s still not possible to rule out that additional factors beyond the variations in gut microbiome contributed to the changes in brain markers of Alzheimer’s.”

Dr. Sexton also noted that the study population is not representative of all people living with AD, with the vast majority of those with preclinical AD in the study being White.

“If these findings are replicated and confirmed in study groups that are representative of our communities, it is possible that gut microbiome signatures could be a further addition to the suite of diagnostic tools employed in certain settings,” Dr. Sexton said.

This research was supported by the Infection Disease Society of America Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, the Brennan Fund and the Paula and Rodger Riney Foundation. Dr. Dantas, Dr. Ances and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures.

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

The overprescribing of opioid pain medications has given way to an overprescribing of anxiolytics, sedatives, and stimulants. The results are unsafe and dangerous.

When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.

I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.

I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too. 

People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.

I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.

Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.

I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients. 

And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.

Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped. 

I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.

Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The overprescribing of opioid pain medications has given way to an overprescribing of anxiolytics, sedatives, and stimulants. The results are unsafe and dangerous.

When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.

I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.

I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too. 

People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.

I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.

Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.

I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients. 

And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.

Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped. 

I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.

Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The overprescribing of opioid pain medications has given way to an overprescribing of anxiolytics, sedatives, and stimulants. The results are unsafe and dangerous.

When we address this problem with patients, some become immediately defensive, making it difficult to modify treatment regimens. It’s almost as if people believe that they have a “right” to their medications and nobody should dare take them away. Even when I think the interaction goes relatively smoothly, the outcome usually shows otherwise.

I will decrease gabapentin from 3,200 mg per day and they will come back with cyclobenzaprine from the urgent care center down the block.

I try to stop an abused amphetamine and dextroamphetamine, and not only do the drugs show up in the urine toxicology test a month later (from the brother’s girlfriend’s sister) but the screening will be positive for cocaine (from the sister’s boyfriend’s brother) and probably alprazolam, too. 

People want what they want, and I believe what they want is the overwhelming need not to feel, and especially to not feel our natural and uncomfortable states of pain, sadness, anxiety, fatigue, and discomfort (sometimes all at once). They will use anything orally or intravenously or nasally to make those feelings go away.

I am an addiction specialist so I write this commentary out of care and concern and recognition of how much, pain both physical and psychic, people suffer.

Perhaps we as physicians are conditioned to believe that we must prescribe “something” to the patient who is uncomfortable and sitting in front of us. In general we are sympathetic to the needs of those who come to us in distress, and we try our best to help reduce their symptoms.

I know that we cannot simply “fire” people, because these patients are ours to take care of; they are our responsibility, though this is our overused response to “difficult” patients. 

And I know that we have insufficient replacements for these medications. We stopped prescribing oxycodone and now people are on gabapentin in the highest doses, diversion is up, and so is its abuse.

Many of us regularly teach about breathing and mindfulness. I discuss trauma and talk therapy. I order physical therapy and walking regimens and podcasts. But our relationship is transactional, and in prescribing a medication, I have shown them that I am hearing them. I hate this feeling of being trapped. 

I spend much of my day negotiating and drive home at night feeling like nothing more than a vending machine.

Dr. Hambright is with the department of addiction medicine at Samaritan Daytop Village, Ellenville, N.Y., and Samadhi Recovery Community Outreach Center, Kingston, N.Y. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.