Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.

Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.

“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.

“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.

The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
 

Trial details

The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.

Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.

A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.

The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).

“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.

This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).

Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.

“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
 

‘Landmark’ trial

This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.

“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.

Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.

First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.

Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.

Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.

Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.

“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.

“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.

Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).

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

Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.

Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.

“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.

“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.

The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
 

Trial details

The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.

Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.

A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.

The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).

“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.

This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).

Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.

“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
 

‘Landmark’ trial

This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.

“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.

Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.

First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.

Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.

Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.

Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.

“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.

“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.

Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).

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

Early, aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis led to a higher incidence of fluid overload without improving clinical outcomes in the landmark WATERFALL trial.

Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.

“The WATERFALL trial demonstrates that aggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis is not safe, it is not associated with improved outcomes, and it should be abandoned,” Enrique de-Madaria, MD, PhD, with Hospital General Universitario Dr. Balmis, Alicante, Spain, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

The trial settles a “new and clear reference for fluid resuscitation in this frequent disease: lactated Ringer’s solution 1.5 mL/kg per hour (preceded by a 10 mL/kg bolus over 2 hours only in case of hypovolemia),” added Dr. de-Madaria, president of the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology.

“This moderate fluid resuscitation strategy is associated with a much lower frequency of fluid overload and a trend toward improved outcomes. For such reasons, it should be considered as a new standard of care in the early management of acute pancreatitis,” Dr. de-Madaria said.

The WATERFALL trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are “stunning and, given the carefully crafted trial methods, irrefutable,” Timothy Gardner, MD, with the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., wrote in a linked editorial.
 

Trial details

The trial was conducted at 18 centers across India, Italy, Mexico, and Spain. Patients who presented with acute pancreatitis were randomly allocated to aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution.

Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 mL/kg of body weight, followed by 3 mL/kg per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 mL/kg in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 mL/kg per hour in all patients in this group.

Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to clinical status.

A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis – 122 in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 127 in the moderate-resuscitation group.

The data and safety monitoring board terminated the trial at the first interim safety analysis as a result of the development of fluid overload in 20.5% of the patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group versus 6.3% of those in the moderate-resuscitation group (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.94; P = .004).

“An increased risk of fluid overload was detected in the overall population of patients and also in subgroups of patients without systemic inflammatory response syndrome at baseline, patients with SIRS at baseline (thus, with a higher risk of development of severe pancreatitis), and patients with hypovolemia,” the investigators reported.

This clear signal of harm was coupled with no significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; aRR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.78-2.18; P = .32).

Patients in the aggressive-resuscitation group spent a median of 6 days in the hospital, compared with 5 days for patients in the moderate-resuscitation group.

“These findings do not support current management guidelines, which recommend early aggressive resuscitation for the treatment of acute pancreatitis,” the study team wrote.
 

‘Landmark’ trial

This is a “landmark” trial and “so clinically relevant because of its choice of real world-appropriate aggressive-resuscitation and moderate-resuscitation treatment groups, its use of pancreatitis severity as the main clinical outcome, and its reliance on the carefully defined variable of fluid overload as the main safety outcome,” Dr. Gardner wrote in his editorial.

“Unlike in most other randomized, controlled trials of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis, patients with varying baseline pancreatitis severity were included, and changes in the rate of resuscitation were determined on the basis of a dynamic assessment of hemodynamic testing, imaging, and clinical factors,” he added.

Dr. Gardner said the WATERFALL trial results lead to several conclusions.

First, the need to focus on a steady rate of initial resuscitation – no more than 1.5 mL/kg of body weight per hour. Clinicians should administer a bolus of 10 mL/kg only if there are signs of initial hypovolemia.

Second, that careful clinical and hemodynamic monitoring are essential during the first 72 hours after admission to make sure that patients remain euvolemic and to avoid fluid overload.

Third, that diuresis in patients with fluid overload in the first 72 hours is most likely beneficial and certainly not detrimental to important clinical outcomes.

Dr. Gardner said the trial also highlights the need to focus research efforts on evaluating other pharmacologic therapies instead of crystalloid fluids.

“Performing randomized controlled trials in acute pancreatitis is notoriously difficult, and the limited human and financial resources that are available for appropriately powered trials in this field post WATERFALL are much better spent on comparative-effectiveness and placebo-controlled trials evaluating new therapeutic agents,” Dr. Gardner said.

“Now that we have gone over the WATERFALL, it is time to look downstream at new targets to treat this challenging disease,” he concluded.

Support for the trial was provided by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, and ISABIAL (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante).

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

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

A novel, low-dose formulation of pramipexole and rasagiline (P2B001) shows promise as a first-line treatment for patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease. Results from a phase 3 trial found that P2B001 was superior to its components in improving motor symptoms and daily function and was comparable with marketed doses of pramipexole.

P2B001 also produced less daytime sleepiness and fewer dopaminergic effects, said the investigators, who presented findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The treatment studied, P2B001, is a proprietary, fixed-dose combination of extended-release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline. Neither dose is currently available on the market.

Investigators wanted to test the hypothesis that two anti-Parkinsonian drugs that act through different mechanisms could work synergistically, providing benefits comparable with pramipexole but with fewer side effects, said lead study author Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus in the neurology and neuroscience departments at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Pramipexole is problematic in that it causes dopaminergic and sleep-related side effects.

Laboratory studies have shown that low doses of pramipexole and rasagiline act synergistically, said Dr. Olanow. “A previous double-blind controlled study demonstrated that P2B001 was significantly superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P < .001) and had a good safety and tolerability profile.”
 

P2B001 outperforms other formulations

The multicenter phase 3 study (NCT03329508) enrolled 544 patients aged 35-80 with early Parkinson’s disease to assess efficacy and safety of a daily dose of P2B001, compared with its components. Patients were randomized 2:2:2:1 to 12 weeks of treatment with P2B001; pramipexole ER 0.6 mg; rasagiline ER 0.75 mg, or to a calibration arm of marketed pramipexole-ER titrated to optimal dose (mean dose, 3.2 mg).

The primary endpoint compared baseline with week 12 changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total scores for P2B001 versus its individual components. The secondary endpoint compared baseline changes in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) for P2B001 versus pramipexole-ER.

P2B001 showed superior efficacy to each of its individual components and comparable efficacy with marketed doses of pramipexole-ER. It also yielded fewer adverse events related to dopaminergic side effects and less daytime sleepiness as measured by ESS. “Further, the drug is administered once a day and does not require titration,” said Dr. Olanow.
 

Levodopa-related benefits

Another advantage of starting early-stage patients on P2B001 is that it would give patients more time to be on an effective therapy with fewer side effects before going on levodopa, the current gold standard for Parkinson’s disease treatment.

Although the American Academy of Neurology recommends levodopa as initial therapy for Parkinson’s disease, the drug has been associated with a risk of developing motor complications.

“This opinion, however, was formulated prior to the availability of the results of the P2B001 study and should be reassessed in the light of the present study,” said Dr. Olanow. Longer-term studies should assess when and if patients will require levodopa therapy, as well as the long-term effects of P2B001 on the development of motor complications in patients with early Parkinson’s disease patients.

Investigators are preparing a regulatory market approval filing for P2B001 with the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Olanow is CEO of Clintrex Research Corporation, which has provided services to Pharma2B, sponsor of the phase 3 study. Pharma Two B is a private, late clinical-stage pharmaceutical company in Rehovot, Israel, that owns worldwide granted patents for P2B001 pharmaceutical composition and method of treatment.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

From the Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

Abstract

Objective: Inpatient vaccination initiatives are well described in the literature. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals began administering COVID-19 vaccines to hospitalized patients. Although vaccination rates increased, there remained many unvaccinated patients despite community efforts. This quality improvement project aimed to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates of hospitalized patients on the medicine service at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH).

Methods: From November 2021 through February 2022, we conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle with 3 phases. Initial steps included gathering baseline data from the electronic health record and consulting stakeholders. The first 2 phases focused on educating housestaff on the availability, ordering process, and administration of the Pfizer vaccine. The third phase consisted of developing educational pamphlets for patients to be included in their admission packets.

Results: The baseline mean COVID-19 vaccination rate (August to October 2021) of eligible patients on the medicine service was 10.7%. In the months after we implemented the PDSA cycle (November 2021 to February 2022), the mean vaccination rate increased to 15.4%.

Conclusion: This quality improvement project implemented measures to increase administration of the Pfizer vaccine to eligible patients admitted to the medicine service at GWUH. The mean vaccination rate increased from 10.7% in the 3 months prior to implementation to 15.4% during the 4 months post implementation. Other measures to consider in the future include increasing the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital and incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set to help facilitate vaccination early in the hospital course.

Keywords: housestaff, quality improvement, PDSA, COVID-19, BNT162b2 vaccine, patient education

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, case rates in the United States have fluctuated considerably, corresponding to epidemic waves. In 2021, US daily cases of COVID-19 peaked at nearly 300,000 in early January and reached a nadir of 8000 cases in mid-June.¹ In September 2021, new cases had increased to 200,000 per day due to the prevalence of the Delta variant.¹ Particularly with the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, vaccination efforts to limit the spread of infection and severity of illness are critical. Data have shown that 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) were largely protective against severe infection for approximately 6 months.^2,3 When we began this quality improvement (QI) project in September 2021, only 179 million Americans had been fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is just over half of the US population.⁴ An electronic survey conducted in the United States with more than 5 million responses found that, of those who were hesitant about receiving the vaccine, 49% reported a fear of adverse effects and 48% reported a lack of trust in the vaccine.⁵

This QI project sought to target unvaccinated individuals admitted to the internal medicine inpatient service. Vaccinating hospitalized patients is especially important since they are sicker than the general population and at higher risk of having poor outcomes from COVID-19. Inpatient vaccine initiatives, such as administering influenza vaccine prior to discharge, have been successfully implemented in the past.⁶ One large COVID-19 vaccination program featured an admission order set to increase the rates of vaccination among hospitalized patients.⁷ Our QI project piloted a multidisciplinary approach involving the nursing staff, pharmacy, information technology (IT) department, and internal medicine housestaff to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among hospitalized patients on the medical service. This project aimed to increase inpatient vaccination rates through interventions targeting both primary providers as well as the patients themselves.

Methods

Setting and Interventions

This project was conducted at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH) in Washington, DC. The clinicians involved in the study were the internal medicine housestaff, and the patients included were adults admitted to the resident medicine ward teams. The project was exempt by the institutional review board and did not require informed consent.

The quality improvement initiative had 3 phases, each featuring a different intervention (Table 1). The first phase involved sending a weekly announcement (via email and a secure health care messaging app) to current residents rotating on the inpatient medicine service. The announcement contained information regarding COVID-19 vaccine availability at the hospital, instructions on ordering the vaccine, and the process of coordinating with pharmacy to facilitate vaccine administration. Thereafter, residents were educated on the process of giving a COVID-19 vaccine to a patient from start to finish. Due to the nature of the residency schedule, different housestaff members rotated in and out of the medicine wards during the intervention periods. The weekly email was sent to the entire internal medicine housestaff, informing all residents about the QI project, while the weekly secure messages served as reminders and were only sent to residents currently on the medicine wards.

In the second phase, we posted paper flyers throughout the hospital to remind housestaff to give the vaccine and again educate them on the process of ordering the vaccine. For the third intervention, a COVID-19 vaccine educational pamphlet was developed for distribution to inpatients at GWUH. The pamphlet included information on vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and eligibility. The pamphlet was incorporated in the admission packet that every patient receives upon admission to the hospital. The patients reviewed the pamphlets with nursing staff, who would answer any questions, with residents available to discuss any outstanding concerns.

Measures and Data Gathering

The primary endpoint of the study was inpatient vaccination rate, defined as the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered divided by the number of patients eligible to receive a vaccine (not fully vaccinated). During initial triage, nursing staff documented vaccination status in the electronic health record (EHR), checking a box in a data entry form if a patient had received 0, 1, or 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. The GWUH IT department generated data from this form to determine the number of patients eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Data were extracted from the medication administration record in the EHR to determine the number of vaccines that were administered to patients during their hospitalization on the inpatient medical service. Each month, the IT department extracted data for the number of eligible patients and the number of vaccines administered. This yielded the monthly vaccination rates. The monthly vaccination rates in the period prior to starting the QI initiative were compared to the rates in the period after the interventions were implemented.

Of note, during the course of this project, patients became eligible for a third COVID-19 vaccine (booster). We decided to continue with the original aim of vaccinating adults who had only received 0 or 1 dose of the vaccine. Therefore, the eligibility criteria remained the same throughout the study. We obtained retrospective data to ensure that the vaccines being counted toward the vaccination rate were vaccines given to patients not yet fully vaccinated and not vaccines given as boosters.

Results

From August to October 2021, the baseline average monthly vaccination rate of patients on the medicine service who were eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 10.7%. After the first intervention, the vaccination rate increased to 19.7% in November 2021 (Table 2). The second intervention yielded vaccination rates of 11.4% and 11.8% in December 2021 and January 2022, respectively. During the final phase in February 2022, the vaccination rate was 19.0%. At the conclusion of the study, the mean vaccination rate for the intervention months was 15.4% (Figure 1). Process stability and variation are demonstrated with a statistical process control chart (Figure 2).

For this housestaff-driven QI project, we implemented an inpatient COVID-19 vaccination campaign consisting of 3 phases that targeted both providers and patients. During the intervention period, we observed an increased vaccination rate compared to the period just prior to implementation of the QI project. While our interventions may certainly have boosted vaccination rates, we understand other variables could have contributed to increased rates as well. The emergence of variants in the United States, such as omicron in December 2021,⁸ could have precipitated a demand for vaccinations among patients. Holidays in November and December may also have increased patients’ desire to get vaccinated before travel.

We encountered a number of roadblocks that challenged our project, including difficulty identifying patients who were eligible for the vaccine, logistical vaccine administration challenges, and hesitancy among the inpatient population. Accurately identifying patients who were eligible for a vaccine in the EHR was especially challenging in the setting of rapidly changing guidelines regarding COVID-19 vaccination. In September 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration authorized the Pfizer booster for certain populations and later, in November 2021, for all adults. This meant that some fully vaccinated hospitalized patients (those with 2 doses) then qualified for an additional dose of the vaccine and received a dose during hospitalization. To determine the true vaccination rate, we obtained retrospective data that allowed us to track each vaccine administered. If a patient had already received 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine administered was counted as a booster and excluded from the calculation of the vaccination rate. Future PDSA cycles could include updating the EHR to capture the whole range of COVID-19 vaccination status (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, fully vaccinated with 1 booster, fully vaccinated with 2 boosters).

We also encountered logistical challenges with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine to hospitalized patients. During the intervention period, our pharmacy department required 5 COVID-19 vaccination orders before opening a vial and administering the vaccine doses in order to reduce waste. This policy may have limited our ability to vaccinate eligible inpatients because we were not always able to identify 5 patients simultaneously on the service who were eligible and consented to the vaccine.

The majority of patients who were interested in receiving COVID-19 vaccination had already been vaccinated in the outpatient setting. This fact made the inpatient internal medicine subset of patients a particularly challenging population to target, given their possible hesitancy regarding vaccination. By utilizing a multidisciplinary team and increasing communication of providers and nursing staff, we helped to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates at our hospital from 10.7% to 15.4%.

Future Directions

Future interventions to consider include increasing the availability of other approved COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital besides the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Furthermore, incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set would help initiate the vaccination process early in the hospital course. We encourage other institutions to utilize similar approaches to not only remind providers about inpatient vaccination, but also educate and encourage patients to receive the vaccine. These measures will help institutions increase inpatient COVID-19 vaccination rates in a high-risk population.

Corresponding author: Anna Rubin, MD, Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; arubin@mfa.gwu.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

Abstract

Objective: Inpatient vaccination initiatives are well described in the literature. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals began administering COVID-19 vaccines to hospitalized patients. Although vaccination rates increased, there remained many unvaccinated patients despite community efforts. This quality improvement project aimed to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates of hospitalized patients on the medicine service at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH).

Methods: From November 2021 through February 2022, we conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle with 3 phases. Initial steps included gathering baseline data from the electronic health record and consulting stakeholders. The first 2 phases focused on educating housestaff on the availability, ordering process, and administration of the Pfizer vaccine. The third phase consisted of developing educational pamphlets for patients to be included in their admission packets.

Results: The baseline mean COVID-19 vaccination rate (August to October 2021) of eligible patients on the medicine service was 10.7%. In the months after we implemented the PDSA cycle (November 2021 to February 2022), the mean vaccination rate increased to 15.4%.

Conclusion: This quality improvement project implemented measures to increase administration of the Pfizer vaccine to eligible patients admitted to the medicine service at GWUH. The mean vaccination rate increased from 10.7% in the 3 months prior to implementation to 15.4% during the 4 months post implementation. Other measures to consider in the future include increasing the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital and incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set to help facilitate vaccination early in the hospital course.

Keywords: housestaff, quality improvement, PDSA, COVID-19, BNT162b2 vaccine, patient education

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, case rates in the United States have fluctuated considerably, corresponding to epidemic waves. In 2021, US daily cases of COVID-19 peaked at nearly 300,000 in early January and reached a nadir of 8000 cases in mid-June.¹ In September 2021, new cases had increased to 200,000 per day due to the prevalence of the Delta variant.¹ Particularly with the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, vaccination efforts to limit the spread of infection and severity of illness are critical. Data have shown that 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) were largely protective against severe infection for approximately 6 months.^2,3 When we began this quality improvement (QI) project in September 2021, only 179 million Americans had been fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is just over half of the US population.⁴ An electronic survey conducted in the United States with more than 5 million responses found that, of those who were hesitant about receiving the vaccine, 49% reported a fear of adverse effects and 48% reported a lack of trust in the vaccine.⁵

This QI project sought to target unvaccinated individuals admitted to the internal medicine inpatient service. Vaccinating hospitalized patients is especially important since they are sicker than the general population and at higher risk of having poor outcomes from COVID-19. Inpatient vaccine initiatives, such as administering influenza vaccine prior to discharge, have been successfully implemented in the past.⁶ One large COVID-19 vaccination program featured an admission order set to increase the rates of vaccination among hospitalized patients.⁷ Our QI project piloted a multidisciplinary approach involving the nursing staff, pharmacy, information technology (IT) department, and internal medicine housestaff to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among hospitalized patients on the medical service. This project aimed to increase inpatient vaccination rates through interventions targeting both primary providers as well as the patients themselves.

Methods

Setting and Interventions

This project was conducted at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH) in Washington, DC. The clinicians involved in the study were the internal medicine housestaff, and the patients included were adults admitted to the resident medicine ward teams. The project was exempt by the institutional review board and did not require informed consent.

The quality improvement initiative had 3 phases, each featuring a different intervention (Table 1). The first phase involved sending a weekly announcement (via email and a secure health care messaging app) to current residents rotating on the inpatient medicine service. The announcement contained information regarding COVID-19 vaccine availability at the hospital, instructions on ordering the vaccine, and the process of coordinating with pharmacy to facilitate vaccine administration. Thereafter, residents were educated on the process of giving a COVID-19 vaccine to a patient from start to finish. Due to the nature of the residency schedule, different housestaff members rotated in and out of the medicine wards during the intervention periods. The weekly email was sent to the entire internal medicine housestaff, informing all residents about the QI project, while the weekly secure messages served as reminders and were only sent to residents currently on the medicine wards.

In the second phase, we posted paper flyers throughout the hospital to remind housestaff to give the vaccine and again educate them on the process of ordering the vaccine. For the third intervention, a COVID-19 vaccine educational pamphlet was developed for distribution to inpatients at GWUH. The pamphlet included information on vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and eligibility. The pamphlet was incorporated in the admission packet that every patient receives upon admission to the hospital. The patients reviewed the pamphlets with nursing staff, who would answer any questions, with residents available to discuss any outstanding concerns.

Measures and Data Gathering

The primary endpoint of the study was inpatient vaccination rate, defined as the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered divided by the number of patients eligible to receive a vaccine (not fully vaccinated). During initial triage, nursing staff documented vaccination status in the electronic health record (EHR), checking a box in a data entry form if a patient had received 0, 1, or 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. The GWUH IT department generated data from this form to determine the number of patients eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Data were extracted from the medication administration record in the EHR to determine the number of vaccines that were administered to patients during their hospitalization on the inpatient medical service. Each month, the IT department extracted data for the number of eligible patients and the number of vaccines administered. This yielded the monthly vaccination rates. The monthly vaccination rates in the period prior to starting the QI initiative were compared to the rates in the period after the interventions were implemented.

Of note, during the course of this project, patients became eligible for a third COVID-19 vaccine (booster). We decided to continue with the original aim of vaccinating adults who had only received 0 or 1 dose of the vaccine. Therefore, the eligibility criteria remained the same throughout the study. We obtained retrospective data to ensure that the vaccines being counted toward the vaccination rate were vaccines given to patients not yet fully vaccinated and not vaccines given as boosters.

Results

From August to October 2021, the baseline average monthly vaccination rate of patients on the medicine service who were eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 10.7%. After the first intervention, the vaccination rate increased to 19.7% in November 2021 (Table 2). The second intervention yielded vaccination rates of 11.4% and 11.8% in December 2021 and January 2022, respectively. During the final phase in February 2022, the vaccination rate was 19.0%. At the conclusion of the study, the mean vaccination rate for the intervention months was 15.4% (Figure 1). Process stability and variation are demonstrated with a statistical process control chart (Figure 2).

For this housestaff-driven QI project, we implemented an inpatient COVID-19 vaccination campaign consisting of 3 phases that targeted both providers and patients. During the intervention period, we observed an increased vaccination rate compared to the period just prior to implementation of the QI project. While our interventions may certainly have boosted vaccination rates, we understand other variables could have contributed to increased rates as well. The emergence of variants in the United States, such as omicron in December 2021,⁸ could have precipitated a demand for vaccinations among patients. Holidays in November and December may also have increased patients’ desire to get vaccinated before travel.

We encountered a number of roadblocks that challenged our project, including difficulty identifying patients who were eligible for the vaccine, logistical vaccine administration challenges, and hesitancy among the inpatient population. Accurately identifying patients who were eligible for a vaccine in the EHR was especially challenging in the setting of rapidly changing guidelines regarding COVID-19 vaccination. In September 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration authorized the Pfizer booster for certain populations and later, in November 2021, for all adults. This meant that some fully vaccinated hospitalized patients (those with 2 doses) then qualified for an additional dose of the vaccine and received a dose during hospitalization. To determine the true vaccination rate, we obtained retrospective data that allowed us to track each vaccine administered. If a patient had already received 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine administered was counted as a booster and excluded from the calculation of the vaccination rate. Future PDSA cycles could include updating the EHR to capture the whole range of COVID-19 vaccination status (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, fully vaccinated with 1 booster, fully vaccinated with 2 boosters).

We also encountered logistical challenges with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine to hospitalized patients. During the intervention period, our pharmacy department required 5 COVID-19 vaccination orders before opening a vial and administering the vaccine doses in order to reduce waste. This policy may have limited our ability to vaccinate eligible inpatients because we were not always able to identify 5 patients simultaneously on the service who were eligible and consented to the vaccine.

The majority of patients who were interested in receiving COVID-19 vaccination had already been vaccinated in the outpatient setting. This fact made the inpatient internal medicine subset of patients a particularly challenging population to target, given their possible hesitancy regarding vaccination. By utilizing a multidisciplinary team and increasing communication of providers and nursing staff, we helped to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates at our hospital from 10.7% to 15.4%.

Future Directions

Future interventions to consider include increasing the availability of other approved COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital besides the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Furthermore, incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set would help initiate the vaccination process early in the hospital course. We encourage other institutions to utilize similar approaches to not only remind providers about inpatient vaccination, but also educate and encourage patients to receive the vaccine. These measures will help institutions increase inpatient COVID-19 vaccination rates in a high-risk population.

Corresponding author: Anna Rubin, MD, Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; arubin@mfa.gwu.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.

Abstract

Objective: Inpatient vaccination initiatives are well described in the literature. During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals began administering COVID-19 vaccines to hospitalized patients. Although vaccination rates increased, there remained many unvaccinated patients despite community efforts. This quality improvement project aimed to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates of hospitalized patients on the medicine service at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH).

Methods: From November 2021 through February 2022, we conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle with 3 phases. Initial steps included gathering baseline data from the electronic health record and consulting stakeholders. The first 2 phases focused on educating housestaff on the availability, ordering process, and administration of the Pfizer vaccine. The third phase consisted of developing educational pamphlets for patients to be included in their admission packets.

Results: The baseline mean COVID-19 vaccination rate (August to October 2021) of eligible patients on the medicine service was 10.7%. In the months after we implemented the PDSA cycle (November 2021 to February 2022), the mean vaccination rate increased to 15.4%.

Conclusion: This quality improvement project implemented measures to increase administration of the Pfizer vaccine to eligible patients admitted to the medicine service at GWUH. The mean vaccination rate increased from 10.7% in the 3 months prior to implementation to 15.4% during the 4 months post implementation. Other measures to consider in the future include increasing the availability of other COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital and incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set to help facilitate vaccination early in the hospital course.

Keywords: housestaff, quality improvement, PDSA, COVID-19, BNT162b2 vaccine, patient education

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, case rates in the United States have fluctuated considerably, corresponding to epidemic waves. In 2021, US daily cases of COVID-19 peaked at nearly 300,000 in early January and reached a nadir of 8000 cases in mid-June.¹ In September 2021, new cases had increased to 200,000 per day due to the prevalence of the Delta variant.¹ Particularly with the emergence of new variants of SARS-CoV-2, vaccination efforts to limit the spread of infection and severity of illness are critical. Data have shown that 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) were largely protective against severe infection for approximately 6 months.^2,3 When we began this quality improvement (QI) project in September 2021, only 179 million Americans had been fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is just over half of the US population.⁴ An electronic survey conducted in the United States with more than 5 million responses found that, of those who were hesitant about receiving the vaccine, 49% reported a fear of adverse effects and 48% reported a lack of trust in the vaccine.⁵

This QI project sought to target unvaccinated individuals admitted to the internal medicine inpatient service. Vaccinating hospitalized patients is especially important since they are sicker than the general population and at higher risk of having poor outcomes from COVID-19. Inpatient vaccine initiatives, such as administering influenza vaccine prior to discharge, have been successfully implemented in the past.⁶ One large COVID-19 vaccination program featured an admission order set to increase the rates of vaccination among hospitalized patients.⁷ Our QI project piloted a multidisciplinary approach involving the nursing staff, pharmacy, information technology (IT) department, and internal medicine housestaff to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among hospitalized patients on the medical service. This project aimed to increase inpatient vaccination rates through interventions targeting both primary providers as well as the patients themselves.

Methods

Setting and Interventions

This project was conducted at the George Washington University Hospital (GWUH) in Washington, DC. The clinicians involved in the study were the internal medicine housestaff, and the patients included were adults admitted to the resident medicine ward teams. The project was exempt by the institutional review board and did not require informed consent.

The quality improvement initiative had 3 phases, each featuring a different intervention (Table 1). The first phase involved sending a weekly announcement (via email and a secure health care messaging app) to current residents rotating on the inpatient medicine service. The announcement contained information regarding COVID-19 vaccine availability at the hospital, instructions on ordering the vaccine, and the process of coordinating with pharmacy to facilitate vaccine administration. Thereafter, residents were educated on the process of giving a COVID-19 vaccine to a patient from start to finish. Due to the nature of the residency schedule, different housestaff members rotated in and out of the medicine wards during the intervention periods. The weekly email was sent to the entire internal medicine housestaff, informing all residents about the QI project, while the weekly secure messages served as reminders and were only sent to residents currently on the medicine wards.

In the second phase, we posted paper flyers throughout the hospital to remind housestaff to give the vaccine and again educate them on the process of ordering the vaccine. For the third intervention, a COVID-19 vaccine educational pamphlet was developed for distribution to inpatients at GWUH. The pamphlet included information on vaccine efficacy, safety, side effects, and eligibility. The pamphlet was incorporated in the admission packet that every patient receives upon admission to the hospital. The patients reviewed the pamphlets with nursing staff, who would answer any questions, with residents available to discuss any outstanding concerns.

Measures and Data Gathering

The primary endpoint of the study was inpatient vaccination rate, defined as the number of COVID-19 vaccines administered divided by the number of patients eligible to receive a vaccine (not fully vaccinated). During initial triage, nursing staff documented vaccination status in the electronic health record (EHR), checking a box in a data entry form if a patient had received 0, 1, or 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. The GWUH IT department generated data from this form to determine the number of patients eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Data were extracted from the medication administration record in the EHR to determine the number of vaccines that were administered to patients during their hospitalization on the inpatient medical service. Each month, the IT department extracted data for the number of eligible patients and the number of vaccines administered. This yielded the monthly vaccination rates. The monthly vaccination rates in the period prior to starting the QI initiative were compared to the rates in the period after the interventions were implemented.

Of note, during the course of this project, patients became eligible for a third COVID-19 vaccine (booster). We decided to continue with the original aim of vaccinating adults who had only received 0 or 1 dose of the vaccine. Therefore, the eligibility criteria remained the same throughout the study. We obtained retrospective data to ensure that the vaccines being counted toward the vaccination rate were vaccines given to patients not yet fully vaccinated and not vaccines given as boosters.

Results

From August to October 2021, the baseline average monthly vaccination rate of patients on the medicine service who were eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine was 10.7%. After the first intervention, the vaccination rate increased to 19.7% in November 2021 (Table 2). The second intervention yielded vaccination rates of 11.4% and 11.8% in December 2021 and January 2022, respectively. During the final phase in February 2022, the vaccination rate was 19.0%. At the conclusion of the study, the mean vaccination rate for the intervention months was 15.4% (Figure 1). Process stability and variation are demonstrated with a statistical process control chart (Figure 2).

For this housestaff-driven QI project, we implemented an inpatient COVID-19 vaccination campaign consisting of 3 phases that targeted both providers and patients. During the intervention period, we observed an increased vaccination rate compared to the period just prior to implementation of the QI project. While our interventions may certainly have boosted vaccination rates, we understand other variables could have contributed to increased rates as well. The emergence of variants in the United States, such as omicron in December 2021,⁸ could have precipitated a demand for vaccinations among patients. Holidays in November and December may also have increased patients’ desire to get vaccinated before travel.

We encountered a number of roadblocks that challenged our project, including difficulty identifying patients who were eligible for the vaccine, logistical vaccine administration challenges, and hesitancy among the inpatient population. Accurately identifying patients who were eligible for a vaccine in the EHR was especially challenging in the setting of rapidly changing guidelines regarding COVID-19 vaccination. In September 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration authorized the Pfizer booster for certain populations and later, in November 2021, for all adults. This meant that some fully vaccinated hospitalized patients (those with 2 doses) then qualified for an additional dose of the vaccine and received a dose during hospitalization. To determine the true vaccination rate, we obtained retrospective data that allowed us to track each vaccine administered. If a patient had already received 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine administered was counted as a booster and excluded from the calculation of the vaccination rate. Future PDSA cycles could include updating the EHR to capture the whole range of COVID-19 vaccination status (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, fully vaccinated with 1 booster, fully vaccinated with 2 boosters).

We also encountered logistical challenges with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine to hospitalized patients. During the intervention period, our pharmacy department required 5 COVID-19 vaccination orders before opening a vial and administering the vaccine doses in order to reduce waste. This policy may have limited our ability to vaccinate eligible inpatients because we were not always able to identify 5 patients simultaneously on the service who were eligible and consented to the vaccine.

The majority of patients who were interested in receiving COVID-19 vaccination had already been vaccinated in the outpatient setting. This fact made the inpatient internal medicine subset of patients a particularly challenging population to target, given their possible hesitancy regarding vaccination. By utilizing a multidisciplinary team and increasing communication of providers and nursing staff, we helped to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rates at our hospital from 10.7% to 15.4%.

Future Directions

Future interventions to consider include increasing the availability of other approved COVID-19 vaccines at our hospital besides the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Furthermore, incorporating the vaccine into the admission order set would help initiate the vaccination process early in the hospital course. We encourage other institutions to utilize similar approaches to not only remind providers about inpatient vaccination, but also educate and encourage patients to receive the vaccine. These measures will help institutions increase inpatient COVID-19 vaccination rates in a high-risk population.

Corresponding author: Anna Rubin, MD, Department of Medicine, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC; arubin@mfa.gwu.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: amungmode@t1dexchange.org

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: amungmode@t1dexchange.org

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: amungmode@t1dexchange.org

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH