Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have just released a 522-page report, but it’s not the usual compilation of guidelines for treatment of a disease. Instead, the authors of “Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action” argue in stark terms that the American society has colossally failed individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD), who are mostly Black or Brown. A dramatic overhaul of the country’s medical and societal priorities is needed to turn things around to improve health and longevity among this rare disease population.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Osaro Erhabor/Creative Commons License

The findings from the NASEM report are explicit: “There has been substantial success in increasing the survival of children with SCD, but this success had not been translated to similar success as they become adults.” One factor posited to contribute to the slow progress in the improvement of quality and quantity of life for adults living with this disease is the fact that “SCD is largely a disease of African Americans, and as such exists in a context of racial discrimination, health and other societal disparities, mistrust of the health care system, and the effects of poverty.” The report also cites the substantial evidence that those with SCD may receive poorer quality of care.

The report’s 14 authors were made up of an ad hoc committee formed at the request of the Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Minority Health. The office asked NASEM to convene the committee to develop a strategic plan and blueprint for the United States and others regarding SCD.

The NASEM SCD committee members “realized that we can’t address the medical components of SCD if we don’t explore societal issues and why it’s been so hard to get good care for people with sickle cell disease,” hematologist and report coauthor Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics at Atrium Health and director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Osunkwo is also the medical editor of Hematology News.

“After almost a year of meetings and digging into the background and history of SCD care, we came out with very comprehensive summary of where we were and where we want to be,” she said. “The report provides short-, intermediate- and long-term recommendations and identifies which entity and organization should be responsible for implementing them.”

The report authors, led by pediatrician and committee chair Marie Clare McCormick, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, stated that about 100,000 people in the United States and millions worldwide live with SCD. The disease kills more than 700 people per year in the United States, and treatment costs an estimated $2 billion a year.

When judged by disability-adjusted life-years lost – a measurement of expected healthy years of life without an illness – the impact of SCD on individuals is estimated to be greater than a long list of other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, type 1 diabetes, and AIDS/HIV, the report noted.

“The health care needs of individuals living with SCD have been neglected by the U.S. and global health care systems, causing them and their families to suffer,” the report said. “Many of the complications that afflict individuals with SCD, particularly pain, are invisible. Pain is only diagnosed by self-reports, and in SCD there are few to no external indicators of the pain experience. Nevertheless, the pain can be excruciatingly severe and requires treatment with strong analgesics.”

There’s even more misery to the story of SCD, the report said, and Dr. Osunkwo agreed. “It’s not just about pain. These individuals suffer from multiple organ-system complications that are physical but also psychological and societal. They experience a lot of disparities in every aspect of their lives. You’re sick, so then you can’t get a job or health insurance, you can’t get Social Security benefits. You can’t get the type of health care you need nor can you access the other forms of support you need and often you are judged as a drug seeker for complaining of pain or repeatedly seeking acute care for unresolved pain.”

Multiple factors exacerbate the experience of people living with SCD in America, the report said. “Because of systemic racism, unconscious bias, and the stigma associated with the diagnosis, the disease brings with it a much broader burden.”

Dr. Osunkwo put it this way: “SCD is a disease that mostly affects Brown and Black people, and that gets layered into the whole discrimination issues that Black and Brown people face compounding the health burden from their disease.”

The report added that “the SCD community has developed a significant lack of trust in the health care system due to the nearly universal stigma and lack of belief in their reports of pain, a lack of trust that has been further reinforced by historical events, such as the Tuskegee experiment.”

The report highlighted research that finds that Blacks “are more likely to receive a lower quality of pain management than white patients and may be perceived as having drug-seeking behavior.”

The report also identified gaps in treatment, noting that “many SCD complications are not restricted to any one organ system, and the impact of the disease on [quality of life] can be profound but hard to define and compartmentalize.”

Dr. Osunkwo said medical professionals often fail to understand the full breadth of the disease. “There’s no particular look to SCD. When you have cancer, you come in, and you look like you’re sick because you’re bald. Everyone clues into that cancer look and knows it’s lethal, that you’re may likely die early. We don’t have that “look that generates empathy” for SCD, and people don’t understand the burden on those affected. They don’t understand or appreciate that SCD shortens your lifespan as well ... that people living with SCD die 3 decades earlier than their ethnically matched peers. Also, SCD is associated with a lot of pain, and pain and the treatment of pain with opioids makes people [health care providers] uncomfortable unless it’s cancer pain.”

She added: “People also assume that, if it’s not pain, it’s not SCD even though SCD can cause leg ulcers and blood clots and even affect the tonsils, or lead to a stroke. When a disease complexity is too difficult for providers to understand, they either avoid it or don’t do anything for the patient.”

Screening and surveillance for SCD and sickle cell trait is insufficient, the report said, and the potential cost of missed childhood cases is large. Detecting the condition at birth allows the implementation of appropriate comprehensive care and treatment to prevent early death from infections and strokes. As the authors noted, “tremendous strides have been made in the past few decades in the care of children with SCD, which have led to almost all children in high-income settings surviving to adulthood.” However, there remains gaps in care coordination and follow-up of babies screened at birth and even bigger gaps in translating these life span gains to adults particularly around the period of transition from pediatrics to adult care when there appears to be a spike in morbidity and mortality.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The report summarized current treatments for SCD and noted “an influx of pipeline products” after years of little progress and identifies “a need for targeted SCD therapies that address the underlying cause of the disease.”

While treatment recommendations exist, Dr. Osunkwo said, “the evidence for them is very poor and many SCD complications have no evidence-based guidelines for providers to follow. We need more research to provide high quality evidence to make guidelines for SCD treatment stronger and more robust.”

In its final section, the report offers a “strategic plan and blueprint for sickle cell disease action.” It offers several strategies to achieve the vision of “long healthy productive lives for those living with sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait”:

• Establish and fund a research agenda to inform effective programs and policies across the life span.
• Implement efforts to advance understanding of the full impact of sickle cell trait on individuals and society.
• Address barriers to accessing current and pipeline therapies for SCD.
• Improve SCD awareness and strengthen advocacy efforts.
• Increase the number of qualified health professionals providing SCD care.
• Strengthen the evidence base for interventions and disease management and implement widespread efforts to monitor the quality of SCD care.
• Establish organized systems of care assuring both clinical and nonclinical supportive services to all persons living with SCD.
• Establish a national system to collect and link data to characterize the burden of disease, outcomes, and the needs of those with SCD across the life span.

“Right now, the average lifespan for SCD is in the mid-40s to mid-50s,” Dr. Osunkwo said. “That’s a horrible statistic. Even if we just take up half of these recommendations, people will live longer with SCD, and they’ll be more productive and contribute more to society. If we value a cancer life the same as a sickle cell life, we’ll be halfway across the finish line. But the stigma of SCD being a Black and Brown problem is going to be the hardest to confront as it requires a systemic change in our culture as a country and a health care system.”

Still, she said, the commissioning of the report “shows that there is a desire to understand the issue in better detail and try to mitigate it.”

Dr. Osunkwo and Dr. McCormick had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2020.

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have just released a 522-page report, but it’s not the usual compilation of guidelines for treatment of a disease. Instead, the authors of “Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action” argue in stark terms that the American society has colossally failed individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD), who are mostly Black or Brown. A dramatic overhaul of the country’s medical and societal priorities is needed to turn things around to improve health and longevity among this rare disease population.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Osaro Erhabor/Creative Commons License

The findings from the NASEM report are explicit: “There has been substantial success in increasing the survival of children with SCD, but this success had not been translated to similar success as they become adults.” One factor posited to contribute to the slow progress in the improvement of quality and quantity of life for adults living with this disease is the fact that “SCD is largely a disease of African Americans, and as such exists in a context of racial discrimination, health and other societal disparities, mistrust of the health care system, and the effects of poverty.” The report also cites the substantial evidence that those with SCD may receive poorer quality of care.

The report’s 14 authors were made up of an ad hoc committee formed at the request of the Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Minority Health. The office asked NASEM to convene the committee to develop a strategic plan and blueprint for the United States and others regarding SCD.

The NASEM SCD committee members “realized that we can’t address the medical components of SCD if we don’t explore societal issues and why it’s been so hard to get good care for people with sickle cell disease,” hematologist and report coauthor Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics at Atrium Health and director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Osunkwo is also the medical editor of Hematology News.

“After almost a year of meetings and digging into the background and history of SCD care, we came out with very comprehensive summary of where we were and where we want to be,” she said. “The report provides short-, intermediate- and long-term recommendations and identifies which entity and organization should be responsible for implementing them.”

The report authors, led by pediatrician and committee chair Marie Clare McCormick, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, stated that about 100,000 people in the United States and millions worldwide live with SCD. The disease kills more than 700 people per year in the United States, and treatment costs an estimated $2 billion a year.

When judged by disability-adjusted life-years lost – a measurement of expected healthy years of life without an illness – the impact of SCD on individuals is estimated to be greater than a long list of other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, type 1 diabetes, and AIDS/HIV, the report noted.

“The health care needs of individuals living with SCD have been neglected by the U.S. and global health care systems, causing them and their families to suffer,” the report said. “Many of the complications that afflict individuals with SCD, particularly pain, are invisible. Pain is only diagnosed by self-reports, and in SCD there are few to no external indicators of the pain experience. Nevertheless, the pain can be excruciatingly severe and requires treatment with strong analgesics.”

There’s even more misery to the story of SCD, the report said, and Dr. Osunkwo agreed. “It’s not just about pain. These individuals suffer from multiple organ-system complications that are physical but also psychological and societal. They experience a lot of disparities in every aspect of their lives. You’re sick, so then you can’t get a job or health insurance, you can’t get Social Security benefits. You can’t get the type of health care you need nor can you access the other forms of support you need and often you are judged as a drug seeker for complaining of pain or repeatedly seeking acute care for unresolved pain.”

Multiple factors exacerbate the experience of people living with SCD in America, the report said. “Because of systemic racism, unconscious bias, and the stigma associated with the diagnosis, the disease brings with it a much broader burden.”

Dr. Osunkwo put it this way: “SCD is a disease that mostly affects Brown and Black people, and that gets layered into the whole discrimination issues that Black and Brown people face compounding the health burden from their disease.”

The report added that “the SCD community has developed a significant lack of trust in the health care system due to the nearly universal stigma and lack of belief in their reports of pain, a lack of trust that has been further reinforced by historical events, such as the Tuskegee experiment.”

The report highlighted research that finds that Blacks “are more likely to receive a lower quality of pain management than white patients and may be perceived as having drug-seeking behavior.”

The report also identified gaps in treatment, noting that “many SCD complications are not restricted to any one organ system, and the impact of the disease on [quality of life] can be profound but hard to define and compartmentalize.”

Dr. Osunkwo said medical professionals often fail to understand the full breadth of the disease. “There’s no particular look to SCD. When you have cancer, you come in, and you look like you’re sick because you’re bald. Everyone clues into that cancer look and knows it’s lethal, that you’re may likely die early. We don’t have that “look that generates empathy” for SCD, and people don’t understand the burden on those affected. They don’t understand or appreciate that SCD shortens your lifespan as well ... that people living with SCD die 3 decades earlier than their ethnically matched peers. Also, SCD is associated with a lot of pain, and pain and the treatment of pain with opioids makes people [health care providers] uncomfortable unless it’s cancer pain.”

She added: “People also assume that, if it’s not pain, it’s not SCD even though SCD can cause leg ulcers and blood clots and even affect the tonsils, or lead to a stroke. When a disease complexity is too difficult for providers to understand, they either avoid it or don’t do anything for the patient.”

Screening and surveillance for SCD and sickle cell trait is insufficient, the report said, and the potential cost of missed childhood cases is large. Detecting the condition at birth allows the implementation of appropriate comprehensive care and treatment to prevent early death from infections and strokes. As the authors noted, “tremendous strides have been made in the past few decades in the care of children with SCD, which have led to almost all children in high-income settings surviving to adulthood.” However, there remains gaps in care coordination and follow-up of babies screened at birth and even bigger gaps in translating these life span gains to adults particularly around the period of transition from pediatrics to adult care when there appears to be a spike in morbidity and mortality.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The report summarized current treatments for SCD and noted “an influx of pipeline products” after years of little progress and identifies “a need for targeted SCD therapies that address the underlying cause of the disease.”

While treatment recommendations exist, Dr. Osunkwo said, “the evidence for them is very poor and many SCD complications have no evidence-based guidelines for providers to follow. We need more research to provide high quality evidence to make guidelines for SCD treatment stronger and more robust.”

In its final section, the report offers a “strategic plan and blueprint for sickle cell disease action.” It offers several strategies to achieve the vision of “long healthy productive lives for those living with sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait”:

• Establish and fund a research agenda to inform effective programs and policies across the life span.
• Implement efforts to advance understanding of the full impact of sickle cell trait on individuals and society.
• Address barriers to accessing current and pipeline therapies for SCD.
• Improve SCD awareness and strengthen advocacy efforts.
• Increase the number of qualified health professionals providing SCD care.
• Strengthen the evidence base for interventions and disease management and implement widespread efforts to monitor the quality of SCD care.
• Establish organized systems of care assuring both clinical and nonclinical supportive services to all persons living with SCD.
• Establish a national system to collect and link data to characterize the burden of disease, outcomes, and the needs of those with SCD across the life span.

“Right now, the average lifespan for SCD is in the mid-40s to mid-50s,” Dr. Osunkwo said. “That’s a horrible statistic. Even if we just take up half of these recommendations, people will live longer with SCD, and they’ll be more productive and contribute more to society. If we value a cancer life the same as a sickle cell life, we’ll be halfway across the finish line. But the stigma of SCD being a Black and Brown problem is going to be the hardest to confront as it requires a systemic change in our culture as a country and a health care system.”

Still, she said, the commissioning of the report “shows that there is a desire to understand the issue in better detail and try to mitigate it.”

Dr. Osunkwo and Dr. McCormick had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2020.

The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have just released a 522-page report, but it’s not the usual compilation of guidelines for treatment of a disease. Instead, the authors of “Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action” argue in stark terms that the American society has colossally failed individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD), who are mostly Black or Brown. A dramatic overhaul of the country’s medical and societal priorities is needed to turn things around to improve health and longevity among this rare disease population.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Osaro Erhabor/Creative Commons License

The findings from the NASEM report are explicit: “There has been substantial success in increasing the survival of children with SCD, but this success had not been translated to similar success as they become adults.” One factor posited to contribute to the slow progress in the improvement of quality and quantity of life for adults living with this disease is the fact that “SCD is largely a disease of African Americans, and as such exists in a context of racial discrimination, health and other societal disparities, mistrust of the health care system, and the effects of poverty.” The report also cites the substantial evidence that those with SCD may receive poorer quality of care.

The report’s 14 authors were made up of an ad hoc committee formed at the request of the Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Minority Health. The office asked NASEM to convene the committee to develop a strategic plan and blueprint for the United States and others regarding SCD.

The NASEM SCD committee members “realized that we can’t address the medical components of SCD if we don’t explore societal issues and why it’s been so hard to get good care for people with sickle cell disease,” hematologist and report coauthor Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics at Atrium Health and director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Osunkwo is also the medical editor of Hematology News.

“After almost a year of meetings and digging into the background and history of SCD care, we came out with very comprehensive summary of where we were and where we want to be,” she said. “The report provides short-, intermediate- and long-term recommendations and identifies which entity and organization should be responsible for implementing them.”

The report authors, led by pediatrician and committee chair Marie Clare McCormick, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, stated that about 100,000 people in the United States and millions worldwide live with SCD. The disease kills more than 700 people per year in the United States, and treatment costs an estimated $2 billion a year.

When judged by disability-adjusted life-years lost – a measurement of expected healthy years of life without an illness – the impact of SCD on individuals is estimated to be greater than a long list of other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, type 1 diabetes, and AIDS/HIV, the report noted.

“The health care needs of individuals living with SCD have been neglected by the U.S. and global health care systems, causing them and their families to suffer,” the report said. “Many of the complications that afflict individuals with SCD, particularly pain, are invisible. Pain is only diagnosed by self-reports, and in SCD there are few to no external indicators of the pain experience. Nevertheless, the pain can be excruciatingly severe and requires treatment with strong analgesics.”

There’s even more misery to the story of SCD, the report said, and Dr. Osunkwo agreed. “It’s not just about pain. These individuals suffer from multiple organ-system complications that are physical but also psychological and societal. They experience a lot of disparities in every aspect of their lives. You’re sick, so then you can’t get a job or health insurance, you can’t get Social Security benefits. You can’t get the type of health care you need nor can you access the other forms of support you need and often you are judged as a drug seeker for complaining of pain or repeatedly seeking acute care for unresolved pain.”

Multiple factors exacerbate the experience of people living with SCD in America, the report said. “Because of systemic racism, unconscious bias, and the stigma associated with the diagnosis, the disease brings with it a much broader burden.”

Dr. Osunkwo put it this way: “SCD is a disease that mostly affects Brown and Black people, and that gets layered into the whole discrimination issues that Black and Brown people face compounding the health burden from their disease.”

The report added that “the SCD community has developed a significant lack of trust in the health care system due to the nearly universal stigma and lack of belief in their reports of pain, a lack of trust that has been further reinforced by historical events, such as the Tuskegee experiment.”

The report highlighted research that finds that Blacks “are more likely to receive a lower quality of pain management than white patients and may be perceived as having drug-seeking behavior.”

The report also identified gaps in treatment, noting that “many SCD complications are not restricted to any one organ system, and the impact of the disease on [quality of life] can be profound but hard to define and compartmentalize.”

Dr. Osunkwo said medical professionals often fail to understand the full breadth of the disease. “There’s no particular look to SCD. When you have cancer, you come in, and you look like you’re sick because you’re bald. Everyone clues into that cancer look and knows it’s lethal, that you’re may likely die early. We don’t have that “look that generates empathy” for SCD, and people don’t understand the burden on those affected. They don’t understand or appreciate that SCD shortens your lifespan as well ... that people living with SCD die 3 decades earlier than their ethnically matched peers. Also, SCD is associated with a lot of pain, and pain and the treatment of pain with opioids makes people [health care providers] uncomfortable unless it’s cancer pain.”

She added: “People also assume that, if it’s not pain, it’s not SCD even though SCD can cause leg ulcers and blood clots and even affect the tonsils, or lead to a stroke. When a disease complexity is too difficult for providers to understand, they either avoid it or don’t do anything for the patient.”

Screening and surveillance for SCD and sickle cell trait is insufficient, the report said, and the potential cost of missed childhood cases is large. Detecting the condition at birth allows the implementation of appropriate comprehensive care and treatment to prevent early death from infections and strokes. As the authors noted, “tremendous strides have been made in the past few decades in the care of children with SCD, which have led to almost all children in high-income settings surviving to adulthood.” However, there remains gaps in care coordination and follow-up of babies screened at birth and even bigger gaps in translating these life span gains to adults particularly around the period of transition from pediatrics to adult care when there appears to be a spike in morbidity and mortality.

Dr_Microbe/Thinkstock

The report summarized current treatments for SCD and noted “an influx of pipeline products” after years of little progress and identifies “a need for targeted SCD therapies that address the underlying cause of the disease.”

While treatment recommendations exist, Dr. Osunkwo said, “the evidence for them is very poor and many SCD complications have no evidence-based guidelines for providers to follow. We need more research to provide high quality evidence to make guidelines for SCD treatment stronger and more robust.”

In its final section, the report offers a “strategic plan and blueprint for sickle cell disease action.” It offers several strategies to achieve the vision of “long healthy productive lives for those living with sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait”:

• Establish and fund a research agenda to inform effective programs and policies across the life span.
• Implement efforts to advance understanding of the full impact of sickle cell trait on individuals and society.
• Address barriers to accessing current and pipeline therapies for SCD.
• Improve SCD awareness and strengthen advocacy efforts.
• Increase the number of qualified health professionals providing SCD care.
• Strengthen the evidence base for interventions and disease management and implement widespread efforts to monitor the quality of SCD care.
• Establish organized systems of care assuring both clinical and nonclinical supportive services to all persons living with SCD.
• Establish a national system to collect and link data to characterize the burden of disease, outcomes, and the needs of those with SCD across the life span.

“Right now, the average lifespan for SCD is in the mid-40s to mid-50s,” Dr. Osunkwo said. “That’s a horrible statistic. Even if we just take up half of these recommendations, people will live longer with SCD, and they’ll be more productive and contribute more to society. If we value a cancer life the same as a sickle cell life, we’ll be halfway across the finish line. But the stigma of SCD being a Black and Brown problem is going to be the hardest to confront as it requires a systemic change in our culture as a country and a health care system.”

Still, she said, the commissioning of the report “shows that there is a desire to understand the issue in better detail and try to mitigate it.”

Dr. Osunkwo and Dr. McCormick had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Addressing Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategic Plan and Blueprint for Action. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2020.

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Two oral agents with novel mechanisms of action in schizophrenia generated considerable audience interest after acing large phase 2 clinical trials presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The two successful drugs moving on to definitive phase 3 studies after their performance at ECNP 2020 are KarXT, a proprietary combination of xanomeline and trospium chloride, and an inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) known for now as BI 425809.

Pimavanserin, an oral selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors, has taken a more convoluted path through the developmental pipeline for schizophrenia. It recently failed to outperform placebo as adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia on the primary endpoint of improvement in Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score in the 6-week, phase 3 ENHANCE (Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Pimavanserin for the Treatment of Schizophrenia) study. The drug did, however, show significant benefit on secondary endpoints involving negative symptoms.

And in the 400-patient, 26-week, placebo-controlled, phase 2 ADVANCE trial, adjunctive pimavanserin was positive for the primary endpoint of improvement in the Negative Symptom Assessment-16 (NSA-16) score. A phase 3 program evaluating the drug specifically for negative symptoms is underway.

Another novel therapy, an investigational selective estrogen receptor beta agonist, proved reassuringly safe but completely ineffective in men with schizophrenia in a study presented at ECNP 2020.

“The results, unfortunately, were disappointing. We saw no signal on cognition, no change on brain imaging with fMRI, and no improvement in negative symptoms or PANSS total score,” reported Alan Breier, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

KarXT

KarXT combines xanomeline, a selective M1/M4 muscarinic receptor agonist exclusively licensed from Lilly to Karuna Therapeutics, with trospium chloride, a muscarinic antagonist approved for more than a decade in the United States and Europe for treatment of overactive bladder. Xanomeline was synthesized in the 1990s. It showed promising evidence of antipsychotic efficacy in schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease in yearlong clinical trials totaling more than 800 patients, but interest in further developing the drug cooled because of limiting GI and other cholinergic adverse events. KarXT, Karuna’s lead product candidate, is designed to maintain the efficacy of xanomeline while trospium, which doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier, cancels out its side effects, explained Stephen Brannan, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the company.

He presented the results of the phase 2 study, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-week trial conducted with 182 schizophrenia inpatients experiencing an acute psychotic exacerbation. All other antipsychotics were washed out before randomization to KarXT at 50 mg xanomeline/20 mg trospium twice daily, titrated to 100/20 twice daily on days 3-7 and 100/20 b.i.d. thereafter, with an optional increase to 125/30 twice daily.

The primary study endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score. The results were positive at the P < .0001 level, with a mean 17.4-point reduction in the KarXT group, compared with a 5.9-point improvement in placebo-treated controls. The between-group difference was significant by the first assessment at week 2.

Four of five prespecified secondary endpoints were also positive in rapid and sustained fashion: improvement in the PANSS positive subscore, PANSS negative subscore, Marder PANSS negative subscore, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity. The fifth secondary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a Clinical Global Impressions rating of 1 or 2, meaning normal or only mildly mentally ill – wasn’t significantly different with KarXT, compared with placebo, but Dr. Brannan shrugged that off.

“In hindsight, it was probably a little overly optimistic to think that after 5 weeks [patients with schizophrenia] would be either well or almost well,” he quipped.

An exploratory analysis of participants’ before-and-after scores on a battery of six cognitive tests showed an encouraging trend: Patients on KarXT performed numerically better than did controls on five of the six tests, albeit not significantly so. Moreover, in a further analysis stratified by baseline impairment, patients in the most impaired tertile showed a larger, statistically significant benefit in response to KarXT.

“We’re interested enough that we plan to continue to look at this in our upcoming larger and longer-term trials,” Dr. Brannan said.

As for safety and tolerability, he continued: “We were pleasantly surprised. We certainly see more side effects with KarXT than with placebo, but not by that much, and they’re much, much better than with xanomeline alone.”

The side effects, mostly cholinergic and anticholinergic, occurred 2-4 times more frequently than in controls. Notably, the rates of nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth – three of the five most common treatment-related adverse events in patients on KarXT – decreased over time to levels similar to placebo by week 5. In contrast, rates of constipation and dyspepsia remained stable over time. All side effects were mild to moderate, and none led to study discontinuation.

A key point was that the KarXT-related side effects were not the same ones that are commonly problematic and limiting with current antipsychotics. There was no weight gain or other metabolic changes, sleepiness or sedation, or extrapyramidal symptoms.

“These results show KarXT has the potential to offer patients a novel mechanism-of-action antipsychotic with a different efficacy and/or tolerability profile than current antipsychotic medications,” Dr. Brannan said.

BI 425809

BI 425809 is a once-daily oral inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) specifically designed to alleviate cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia. Underactivity by the NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) receptor has been implicated in this cognitive dysfunction. Glycine is an NMDA cotransmitter. By blocking glutamatergic presynaptic and astrocyte reuptake of glycine, BI 425809 results in increased glycine levels in the synaptic cleft, facilitating neurotransmission, explained W. Wolfgang Fleischhacker, MD, president of the Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), where he is also professor of psychiatry.

He presented the results of a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, 11-country study in which 509 adults with stable schizophrenia on no more than two antipsychotics were placed on add-on BI 425809 at 2, 5, 10, or 25 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline to 12 weeks in the MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) score. The results were strongly positive, with patients on the two top doses of BI 425809 – 10 and 25 mg/day – showing roughly a 2-point greater improvement in MCCB overall composite T-score compared with controls. Dr. Fleischhacker drew attention to the high study completion rates in the various study arms, ranging from a low of 91% to 97.6% in the 25 mg/day group.

“That’s a very nice but also an unusual finding for a trial of this length,” he observed.

The high study completion rate was a reflection of the drug’s high-level tolerability. Indeed, the rate of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 0% with BI 425809 at 10 mg/day, 2.4% at 25 mg/day, and identical at 2.4% with placebo. No increase was found in psychiatric adverse events such as suicidal ideation or behavior.

“This is a first very promising result,” Dr. Fleischhacker concluded. “Basically, this is the first study that has really shown in a convincing fashion an effect of any novel compound on cognitive impairment in people suffering from schizophrenia.”

A separate ongoing phase 2 study is evaluating BI 425809 in combination with adjunctive computerized cognitive training in an effort to increase cognitive stimulation. The company is awaiting those study results before designing its phase 3 program.
 

Pimavanserin

It has been a busy year for pimavanserin, with both successes and disappointments in clinical trials addressing a range of psychotic disorders, according to Dragana Bugarski-Kirola, MD, MBA, MSc, vice president for clinical development at Acadia Pharmaceuticals in San Diego.

At present, pimavanserin is Food and Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis. But in July 2020, on the strength of the positive results of the pivotal phase 3 HARMONY trial, Acadia filed an application with the FDA for marketing approval of the drug for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. In HARMONY, patients on placebo proved to be 2.8-fold more likely to experience a relapse of delusions or hallucinations than with pimavanserin.

A big recent disappointment was that pimavanserin failed to meet its primary endpoint in the phase 3 CLARITY I and CLARITY II trials as adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 scores in patients on the atypical antipsychotic wasn’t significantly better than with placebo. However, pimavanserin did outperform placebo on the secondary endpoint of Clinical Global Impression–Severity. Additional clinical trials of the drug for treatment of major depression are planned, Dr. Bugarski-Kirola said.
 

LY500307

Although schizophrenia is equally common in men and women, the disease has a later onset and more benign course in women. This suggests a possible protective effect of estrogen, and indeed, extensive literature supports the use of exogenous estrogen in schizophrenia, where it reduces relapses and improves cognitive impairment and negative symptoms.

“We have no other agents that do that,” noted Dr. Breier, also chief of the psychotic disorders program and director of the Prevention and Recovery Center at Indiana University.

What he considers the best-executed clinical trial of estradiol in schizophrenia, an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of a 200-mcg estradiol patch or placebo in 200 women aged 19-46 on antipsychotics, was published last year (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 31;76[10]:1-9).

The results were impressive. However, estrogen may not be a viable treatment for men and premenopausal women because of its side effects, including feminization, and increased thrombotic and malignancy risks.

This was the impetus for the placebo-controlled randomized trial of LY500307, a highly selective estrogen receptor beta agonist originally developed by Eli Lilly as a potential treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy, for which it proved ineffective. In animal models, estrogen receptor beta is responsible for a range of effects, including enhanced cognition, social behavior, and an anxiolytic action, whereas the alpha receptor affects the sex organs, skeletal and metabolic homeostasis, and is responsible for estrogen’s problematic side effects.

All three doses studied in the phase 2 randomized trial, which included 94 men with schizophrenia, proved safe, well-tolerated – and ineffective.

“I think one potential conclusion one could consider from these data is that estrogen receptor alpha engagement may be necessary for the estrogenic therapeutics in schizophrenia,” Dr. Breier said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the trial, funded by Indiana University. Outside the scope of the study, he serves as a consultant to Karuna Therapeutics, BioXcel, and Perception Neuroscience.

Dr. Fleischhacker serves as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, which sponsored the phase 2 study of BI 425809, as well as to Angelini, Richter, and Recordati.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ECNP 2020, Session S.12.

Two oral agents with novel mechanisms of action in schizophrenia generated considerable audience interest after acing large phase 2 clinical trials presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The two successful drugs moving on to definitive phase 3 studies after their performance at ECNP 2020 are KarXT, a proprietary combination of xanomeline and trospium chloride, and an inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) known for now as BI 425809.

Pimavanserin, an oral selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors, has taken a more convoluted path through the developmental pipeline for schizophrenia. It recently failed to outperform placebo as adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia on the primary endpoint of improvement in Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score in the 6-week, phase 3 ENHANCE (Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Pimavanserin for the Treatment of Schizophrenia) study. The drug did, however, show significant benefit on secondary endpoints involving negative symptoms.

And in the 400-patient, 26-week, placebo-controlled, phase 2 ADVANCE trial, adjunctive pimavanserin was positive for the primary endpoint of improvement in the Negative Symptom Assessment-16 (NSA-16) score. A phase 3 program evaluating the drug specifically for negative symptoms is underway.

Another novel therapy, an investigational selective estrogen receptor beta agonist, proved reassuringly safe but completely ineffective in men with schizophrenia in a study presented at ECNP 2020.

“The results, unfortunately, were disappointing. We saw no signal on cognition, no change on brain imaging with fMRI, and no improvement in negative symptoms or PANSS total score,” reported Alan Breier, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

KarXT

KarXT combines xanomeline, a selective M1/M4 muscarinic receptor agonist exclusively licensed from Lilly to Karuna Therapeutics, with trospium chloride, a muscarinic antagonist approved for more than a decade in the United States and Europe for treatment of overactive bladder. Xanomeline was synthesized in the 1990s. It showed promising evidence of antipsychotic efficacy in schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease in yearlong clinical trials totaling more than 800 patients, but interest in further developing the drug cooled because of limiting GI and other cholinergic adverse events. KarXT, Karuna’s lead product candidate, is designed to maintain the efficacy of xanomeline while trospium, which doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier, cancels out its side effects, explained Stephen Brannan, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the company.

He presented the results of the phase 2 study, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-week trial conducted with 182 schizophrenia inpatients experiencing an acute psychotic exacerbation. All other antipsychotics were washed out before randomization to KarXT at 50 mg xanomeline/20 mg trospium twice daily, titrated to 100/20 twice daily on days 3-7 and 100/20 b.i.d. thereafter, with an optional increase to 125/30 twice daily.

The primary study endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score. The results were positive at the P < .0001 level, with a mean 17.4-point reduction in the KarXT group, compared with a 5.9-point improvement in placebo-treated controls. The between-group difference was significant by the first assessment at week 2.

Four of five prespecified secondary endpoints were also positive in rapid and sustained fashion: improvement in the PANSS positive subscore, PANSS negative subscore, Marder PANSS negative subscore, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity. The fifth secondary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a Clinical Global Impressions rating of 1 or 2, meaning normal or only mildly mentally ill – wasn’t significantly different with KarXT, compared with placebo, but Dr. Brannan shrugged that off.

“In hindsight, it was probably a little overly optimistic to think that after 5 weeks [patients with schizophrenia] would be either well or almost well,” he quipped.

An exploratory analysis of participants’ before-and-after scores on a battery of six cognitive tests showed an encouraging trend: Patients on KarXT performed numerically better than did controls on five of the six tests, albeit not significantly so. Moreover, in a further analysis stratified by baseline impairment, patients in the most impaired tertile showed a larger, statistically significant benefit in response to KarXT.

“We’re interested enough that we plan to continue to look at this in our upcoming larger and longer-term trials,” Dr. Brannan said.

As for safety and tolerability, he continued: “We were pleasantly surprised. We certainly see more side effects with KarXT than with placebo, but not by that much, and they’re much, much better than with xanomeline alone.”

The side effects, mostly cholinergic and anticholinergic, occurred 2-4 times more frequently than in controls. Notably, the rates of nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth – three of the five most common treatment-related adverse events in patients on KarXT – decreased over time to levels similar to placebo by week 5. In contrast, rates of constipation and dyspepsia remained stable over time. All side effects were mild to moderate, and none led to study discontinuation.

A key point was that the KarXT-related side effects were not the same ones that are commonly problematic and limiting with current antipsychotics. There was no weight gain or other metabolic changes, sleepiness or sedation, or extrapyramidal symptoms.

“These results show KarXT has the potential to offer patients a novel mechanism-of-action antipsychotic with a different efficacy and/or tolerability profile than current antipsychotic medications,” Dr. Brannan said.

BI 425809

BI 425809 is a once-daily oral inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) specifically designed to alleviate cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia. Underactivity by the NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) receptor has been implicated in this cognitive dysfunction. Glycine is an NMDA cotransmitter. By blocking glutamatergic presynaptic and astrocyte reuptake of glycine, BI 425809 results in increased glycine levels in the synaptic cleft, facilitating neurotransmission, explained W. Wolfgang Fleischhacker, MD, president of the Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), where he is also professor of psychiatry.

He presented the results of a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, 11-country study in which 509 adults with stable schizophrenia on no more than two antipsychotics were placed on add-on BI 425809 at 2, 5, 10, or 25 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline to 12 weeks in the MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) score. The results were strongly positive, with patients on the two top doses of BI 425809 – 10 and 25 mg/day – showing roughly a 2-point greater improvement in MCCB overall composite T-score compared with controls. Dr. Fleischhacker drew attention to the high study completion rates in the various study arms, ranging from a low of 91% to 97.6% in the 25 mg/day group.

“That’s a very nice but also an unusual finding for a trial of this length,” he observed.

The high study completion rate was a reflection of the drug’s high-level tolerability. Indeed, the rate of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 0% with BI 425809 at 10 mg/day, 2.4% at 25 mg/day, and identical at 2.4% with placebo. No increase was found in psychiatric adverse events such as suicidal ideation or behavior.

“This is a first very promising result,” Dr. Fleischhacker concluded. “Basically, this is the first study that has really shown in a convincing fashion an effect of any novel compound on cognitive impairment in people suffering from schizophrenia.”

A separate ongoing phase 2 study is evaluating BI 425809 in combination with adjunctive computerized cognitive training in an effort to increase cognitive stimulation. The company is awaiting those study results before designing its phase 3 program.
 

Pimavanserin

It has been a busy year for pimavanserin, with both successes and disappointments in clinical trials addressing a range of psychotic disorders, according to Dragana Bugarski-Kirola, MD, MBA, MSc, vice president for clinical development at Acadia Pharmaceuticals in San Diego.

At present, pimavanserin is Food and Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis. But in July 2020, on the strength of the positive results of the pivotal phase 3 HARMONY trial, Acadia filed an application with the FDA for marketing approval of the drug for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. In HARMONY, patients on placebo proved to be 2.8-fold more likely to experience a relapse of delusions or hallucinations than with pimavanserin.

A big recent disappointment was that pimavanserin failed to meet its primary endpoint in the phase 3 CLARITY I and CLARITY II trials as adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 scores in patients on the atypical antipsychotic wasn’t significantly better than with placebo. However, pimavanserin did outperform placebo on the secondary endpoint of Clinical Global Impression–Severity. Additional clinical trials of the drug for treatment of major depression are planned, Dr. Bugarski-Kirola said.
 

LY500307

Although schizophrenia is equally common in men and women, the disease has a later onset and more benign course in women. This suggests a possible protective effect of estrogen, and indeed, extensive literature supports the use of exogenous estrogen in schizophrenia, where it reduces relapses and improves cognitive impairment and negative symptoms.

“We have no other agents that do that,” noted Dr. Breier, also chief of the psychotic disorders program and director of the Prevention and Recovery Center at Indiana University.

What he considers the best-executed clinical trial of estradiol in schizophrenia, an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of a 200-mcg estradiol patch or placebo in 200 women aged 19-46 on antipsychotics, was published last year (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 31;76[10]:1-9).

The results were impressive. However, estrogen may not be a viable treatment for men and premenopausal women because of its side effects, including feminization, and increased thrombotic and malignancy risks.

This was the impetus for the placebo-controlled randomized trial of LY500307, a highly selective estrogen receptor beta agonist originally developed by Eli Lilly as a potential treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy, for which it proved ineffective. In animal models, estrogen receptor beta is responsible for a range of effects, including enhanced cognition, social behavior, and an anxiolytic action, whereas the alpha receptor affects the sex organs, skeletal and metabolic homeostasis, and is responsible for estrogen’s problematic side effects.

All three doses studied in the phase 2 randomized trial, which included 94 men with schizophrenia, proved safe, well-tolerated – and ineffective.

“I think one potential conclusion one could consider from these data is that estrogen receptor alpha engagement may be necessary for the estrogenic therapeutics in schizophrenia,” Dr. Breier said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the trial, funded by Indiana University. Outside the scope of the study, he serves as a consultant to Karuna Therapeutics, BioXcel, and Perception Neuroscience.

Dr. Fleischhacker serves as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, which sponsored the phase 2 study of BI 425809, as well as to Angelini, Richter, and Recordati.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ECNP 2020, Session S.12.

Two oral agents with novel mechanisms of action in schizophrenia generated considerable audience interest after acing large phase 2 clinical trials presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The two successful drugs moving on to definitive phase 3 studies after their performance at ECNP 2020 are KarXT, a proprietary combination of xanomeline and trospium chloride, and an inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) known for now as BI 425809.

Pimavanserin, an oral selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors, has taken a more convoluted path through the developmental pipeline for schizophrenia. It recently failed to outperform placebo as adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia on the primary endpoint of improvement in Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score in the 6-week, phase 3 ENHANCE (Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Pimavanserin for the Treatment of Schizophrenia) study. The drug did, however, show significant benefit on secondary endpoints involving negative symptoms.

And in the 400-patient, 26-week, placebo-controlled, phase 2 ADVANCE trial, adjunctive pimavanserin was positive for the primary endpoint of improvement in the Negative Symptom Assessment-16 (NSA-16) score. A phase 3 program evaluating the drug specifically for negative symptoms is underway.

Another novel therapy, an investigational selective estrogen receptor beta agonist, proved reassuringly safe but completely ineffective in men with schizophrenia in a study presented at ECNP 2020.

“The results, unfortunately, were disappointing. We saw no signal on cognition, no change on brain imaging with fMRI, and no improvement in negative symptoms or PANSS total score,” reported Alan Breier, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

KarXT

KarXT combines xanomeline, a selective M1/M4 muscarinic receptor agonist exclusively licensed from Lilly to Karuna Therapeutics, with trospium chloride, a muscarinic antagonist approved for more than a decade in the United States and Europe for treatment of overactive bladder. Xanomeline was synthesized in the 1990s. It showed promising evidence of antipsychotic efficacy in schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease in yearlong clinical trials totaling more than 800 patients, but interest in further developing the drug cooled because of limiting GI and other cholinergic adverse events. KarXT, Karuna’s lead product candidate, is designed to maintain the efficacy of xanomeline while trospium, which doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier, cancels out its side effects, explained Stephen Brannan, MD, a psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the company.

He presented the results of the phase 2 study, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-week trial conducted with 182 schizophrenia inpatients experiencing an acute psychotic exacerbation. All other antipsychotics were washed out before randomization to KarXT at 50 mg xanomeline/20 mg trospium twice daily, titrated to 100/20 twice daily on days 3-7 and 100/20 b.i.d. thereafter, with an optional increase to 125/30 twice daily.

The primary study endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score. The results were positive at the P < .0001 level, with a mean 17.4-point reduction in the KarXT group, compared with a 5.9-point improvement in placebo-treated controls. The between-group difference was significant by the first assessment at week 2.

Four of five prespecified secondary endpoints were also positive in rapid and sustained fashion: improvement in the PANSS positive subscore, PANSS negative subscore, Marder PANSS negative subscore, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity. The fifth secondary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a Clinical Global Impressions rating of 1 or 2, meaning normal or only mildly mentally ill – wasn’t significantly different with KarXT, compared with placebo, but Dr. Brannan shrugged that off.

“In hindsight, it was probably a little overly optimistic to think that after 5 weeks [patients with schizophrenia] would be either well or almost well,” he quipped.

An exploratory analysis of participants’ before-and-after scores on a battery of six cognitive tests showed an encouraging trend: Patients on KarXT performed numerically better than did controls on five of the six tests, albeit not significantly so. Moreover, in a further analysis stratified by baseline impairment, patients in the most impaired tertile showed a larger, statistically significant benefit in response to KarXT.

“We’re interested enough that we plan to continue to look at this in our upcoming larger and longer-term trials,” Dr. Brannan said.

As for safety and tolerability, he continued: “We were pleasantly surprised. We certainly see more side effects with KarXT than with placebo, but not by that much, and they’re much, much better than with xanomeline alone.”

The side effects, mostly cholinergic and anticholinergic, occurred 2-4 times more frequently than in controls. Notably, the rates of nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth – three of the five most common treatment-related adverse events in patients on KarXT – decreased over time to levels similar to placebo by week 5. In contrast, rates of constipation and dyspepsia remained stable over time. All side effects were mild to moderate, and none led to study discontinuation.

A key point was that the KarXT-related side effects were not the same ones that are commonly problematic and limiting with current antipsychotics. There was no weight gain or other metabolic changes, sleepiness or sedation, or extrapyramidal symptoms.

“These results show KarXT has the potential to offer patients a novel mechanism-of-action antipsychotic with a different efficacy and/or tolerability profile than current antipsychotic medications,” Dr. Brannan said.

BI 425809

BI 425809 is a once-daily oral inhibitor of glycine transporter 1 (Gly-T1) specifically designed to alleviate cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia. Underactivity by the NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) receptor has been implicated in this cognitive dysfunction. Glycine is an NMDA cotransmitter. By blocking glutamatergic presynaptic and astrocyte reuptake of glycine, BI 425809 results in increased glycine levels in the synaptic cleft, facilitating neurotransmission, explained W. Wolfgang Fleischhacker, MD, president of the Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), where he is also professor of psychiatry.

He presented the results of a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, 11-country study in which 509 adults with stable schizophrenia on no more than two antipsychotics were placed on add-on BI 425809 at 2, 5, 10, or 25 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline to 12 weeks in the MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) score. The results were strongly positive, with patients on the two top doses of BI 425809 – 10 and 25 mg/day – showing roughly a 2-point greater improvement in MCCB overall composite T-score compared with controls. Dr. Fleischhacker drew attention to the high study completion rates in the various study arms, ranging from a low of 91% to 97.6% in the 25 mg/day group.

“That’s a very nice but also an unusual finding for a trial of this length,” he observed.

The high study completion rate was a reflection of the drug’s high-level tolerability. Indeed, the rate of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 0% with BI 425809 at 10 mg/day, 2.4% at 25 mg/day, and identical at 2.4% with placebo. No increase was found in psychiatric adverse events such as suicidal ideation or behavior.

“This is a first very promising result,” Dr. Fleischhacker concluded. “Basically, this is the first study that has really shown in a convincing fashion an effect of any novel compound on cognitive impairment in people suffering from schizophrenia.”

A separate ongoing phase 2 study is evaluating BI 425809 in combination with adjunctive computerized cognitive training in an effort to increase cognitive stimulation. The company is awaiting those study results before designing its phase 3 program.
 

Pimavanserin

It has been a busy year for pimavanserin, with both successes and disappointments in clinical trials addressing a range of psychotic disorders, according to Dragana Bugarski-Kirola, MD, MBA, MSc, vice president for clinical development at Acadia Pharmaceuticals in San Diego.

At present, pimavanserin is Food and Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis. But in July 2020, on the strength of the positive results of the pivotal phase 3 HARMONY trial, Acadia filed an application with the FDA for marketing approval of the drug for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. In HARMONY, patients on placebo proved to be 2.8-fold more likely to experience a relapse of delusions or hallucinations than with pimavanserin.

A big recent disappointment was that pimavanserin failed to meet its primary endpoint in the phase 3 CLARITY I and CLARITY II trials as adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 scores in patients on the atypical antipsychotic wasn’t significantly better than with placebo. However, pimavanserin did outperform placebo on the secondary endpoint of Clinical Global Impression–Severity. Additional clinical trials of the drug for treatment of major depression are planned, Dr. Bugarski-Kirola said.
 

LY500307

Although schizophrenia is equally common in men and women, the disease has a later onset and more benign course in women. This suggests a possible protective effect of estrogen, and indeed, extensive literature supports the use of exogenous estrogen in schizophrenia, where it reduces relapses and improves cognitive impairment and negative symptoms.

“We have no other agents that do that,” noted Dr. Breier, also chief of the psychotic disorders program and director of the Prevention and Recovery Center at Indiana University.

What he considers the best-executed clinical trial of estradiol in schizophrenia, an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of a 200-mcg estradiol patch or placebo in 200 women aged 19-46 on antipsychotics, was published last year (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 31;76[10]:1-9).

The results were impressive. However, estrogen may not be a viable treatment for men and premenopausal women because of its side effects, including feminization, and increased thrombotic and malignancy risks.

This was the impetus for the placebo-controlled randomized trial of LY500307, a highly selective estrogen receptor beta agonist originally developed by Eli Lilly as a potential treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy, for which it proved ineffective. In animal models, estrogen receptor beta is responsible for a range of effects, including enhanced cognition, social behavior, and an anxiolytic action, whereas the alpha receptor affects the sex organs, skeletal and metabolic homeostasis, and is responsible for estrogen’s problematic side effects.

All three doses studied in the phase 2 randomized trial, which included 94 men with schizophrenia, proved safe, well-tolerated – and ineffective.

“I think one potential conclusion one could consider from these data is that estrogen receptor alpha engagement may be necessary for the estrogenic therapeutics in schizophrenia,” Dr. Breier said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the trial, funded by Indiana University. Outside the scope of the study, he serves as a consultant to Karuna Therapeutics, BioXcel, and Perception Neuroscience.

Dr. Fleischhacker serves as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, which sponsored the phase 2 study of BI 425809, as well as to Angelini, Richter, and Recordati.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: ECNP 2020, Session S.12.

The disinhibited binge eating style often seen in individuals with high ADHD symptoms is attributable to a heightened neural reward response to food rather than to the impulsivity that’s a core feature of ADHD, Elizabeth Martin, MSc, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

She presented a functional MRI brain-imaging study designed to help pin down the mechanism involved in the disordered eating patterns that often accompany ADHD.

“Determining the underlying mechanism between binge eating and ADHD may be helpful in developing novel therapies for both ADHD and binge eating disorder. Our research suggests that further investigation of the role of altered reward processing in ADHD may be an avenue for this,” said Ms. Martin, a doctoral researcher in the department of psychology at the University of Birmingham (England).

She and her coinvestigators recruited 31 university student volunteers with high ADHD symptoms as evidenced by their mean score of 29.3 on the 0-54 Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale, and 27 others with low ADHD symptoms and a mean Conners’ score of 6.8. The two groups didn’t differ in age or BMI. However, not surprisingly, the high-ADHD group exhibited greater impulsivity, with a mean score of 72 on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, versus 56.5 in the low ADHD group.

A battery of eating disorder scales was applied to assess participants in terms of binge/disinhibited or restrictive eating patterns. The high- and low–ADHD symptom groups didn’t differ in terms of prevalence of a restrictive eating style, which was low, but the high-ADHD participants scored on average roughly 50% higher on the binge/disinhibited eating style measure, compared with the low-ADHD group.

Each study participant underwent a 1-hour BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) functional MRI scan while performing two sets of tasks. One task entailed quickly looking at 120 photos of food items and an equal number of nonfood items and rating how appealing the pictures were. The other challenge was what psychologists call a go/no-go task, a computerized cognitive test used to assess inhibitory control based upon reaction times and error rates.

On the go/no-go task, there were no between-group differences in rates of errors of omission or commission or reaction time. Moreover, the MRI results indicated there were no between-group differences in neural circuitry activation during this task. The investigators therefore concluded that the tendency toward binge eating in the high–ADHD symptoms group was not tied to greater impulsivity as reflected in less effective inhibitory processes.

The food picture rating task told a different story. The MRIs demonstrated increased responses to food versus nonfood images in the high-ADHD subjects, compared with the low-ADHD subjects in reward-related brain areas, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area.

“This is the first evidence that ADHD symptoms in young adults are associated with enhanced neural activation in key reward-related brain areas in response to viewing food pictures,” according to Ms. Martin. “This suggests that enhanced responsiveness to food cues may be a mediating mechanism underlying overeating in ADHD.”

Of note, only one drug – lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (Vyvanse) is Food and Drug Administration-approved for the treatment of both ADHD and binge-eating disorder.

“Until now it’s been unclear how lisdexamfetamine dimesylate reduces binge eating, but our results suggest that one mechanism worthy of further investigation is the potential effect of the drug on food reward processes,” Ms. Martin said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by university funding.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin E. ECNP 2020. Abstr. P.041.

The disinhibited binge eating style often seen in individuals with high ADHD symptoms is attributable to a heightened neural reward response to food rather than to the impulsivity that’s a core feature of ADHD, Elizabeth Martin, MSc, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

She presented a functional MRI brain-imaging study designed to help pin down the mechanism involved in the disordered eating patterns that often accompany ADHD.

“Determining the underlying mechanism between binge eating and ADHD may be helpful in developing novel therapies for both ADHD and binge eating disorder. Our research suggests that further investigation of the role of altered reward processing in ADHD may be an avenue for this,” said Ms. Martin, a doctoral researcher in the department of psychology at the University of Birmingham (England).

She and her coinvestigators recruited 31 university student volunteers with high ADHD symptoms as evidenced by their mean score of 29.3 on the 0-54 Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale, and 27 others with low ADHD symptoms and a mean Conners’ score of 6.8. The two groups didn’t differ in age or BMI. However, not surprisingly, the high-ADHD group exhibited greater impulsivity, with a mean score of 72 on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, versus 56.5 in the low ADHD group.

A battery of eating disorder scales was applied to assess participants in terms of binge/disinhibited or restrictive eating patterns. The high- and low–ADHD symptom groups didn’t differ in terms of prevalence of a restrictive eating style, which was low, but the high-ADHD participants scored on average roughly 50% higher on the binge/disinhibited eating style measure, compared with the low-ADHD group.

Each study participant underwent a 1-hour BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) functional MRI scan while performing two sets of tasks. One task entailed quickly looking at 120 photos of food items and an equal number of nonfood items and rating how appealing the pictures were. The other challenge was what psychologists call a go/no-go task, a computerized cognitive test used to assess inhibitory control based upon reaction times and error rates.

On the go/no-go task, there were no between-group differences in rates of errors of omission or commission or reaction time. Moreover, the MRI results indicated there were no between-group differences in neural circuitry activation during this task. The investigators therefore concluded that the tendency toward binge eating in the high–ADHD symptoms group was not tied to greater impulsivity as reflected in less effective inhibitory processes.

The food picture rating task told a different story. The MRIs demonstrated increased responses to food versus nonfood images in the high-ADHD subjects, compared with the low-ADHD subjects in reward-related brain areas, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area.

“This is the first evidence that ADHD symptoms in young adults are associated with enhanced neural activation in key reward-related brain areas in response to viewing food pictures,” according to Ms. Martin. “This suggests that enhanced responsiveness to food cues may be a mediating mechanism underlying overeating in ADHD.”

Of note, only one drug – lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (Vyvanse) is Food and Drug Administration-approved for the treatment of both ADHD and binge-eating disorder.

“Until now it’s been unclear how lisdexamfetamine dimesylate reduces binge eating, but our results suggest that one mechanism worthy of further investigation is the potential effect of the drug on food reward processes,” Ms. Martin said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by university funding.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin E. ECNP 2020. Abstr. P.041.

The disinhibited binge eating style often seen in individuals with high ADHD symptoms is attributable to a heightened neural reward response to food rather than to the impulsivity that’s a core feature of ADHD, Elizabeth Martin, MSc, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

She presented a functional MRI brain-imaging study designed to help pin down the mechanism involved in the disordered eating patterns that often accompany ADHD.

“Determining the underlying mechanism between binge eating and ADHD may be helpful in developing novel therapies for both ADHD and binge eating disorder. Our research suggests that further investigation of the role of altered reward processing in ADHD may be an avenue for this,” said Ms. Martin, a doctoral researcher in the department of psychology at the University of Birmingham (England).

She and her coinvestigators recruited 31 university student volunteers with high ADHD symptoms as evidenced by their mean score of 29.3 on the 0-54 Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale, and 27 others with low ADHD symptoms and a mean Conners’ score of 6.8. The two groups didn’t differ in age or BMI. However, not surprisingly, the high-ADHD group exhibited greater impulsivity, with a mean score of 72 on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, versus 56.5 in the low ADHD group.

A battery of eating disorder scales was applied to assess participants in terms of binge/disinhibited or restrictive eating patterns. The high- and low–ADHD symptom groups didn’t differ in terms of prevalence of a restrictive eating style, which was low, but the high-ADHD participants scored on average roughly 50% higher on the binge/disinhibited eating style measure, compared with the low-ADHD group.

Each study participant underwent a 1-hour BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) functional MRI scan while performing two sets of tasks. One task entailed quickly looking at 120 photos of food items and an equal number of nonfood items and rating how appealing the pictures were. The other challenge was what psychologists call a go/no-go task, a computerized cognitive test used to assess inhibitory control based upon reaction times and error rates.

On the go/no-go task, there were no between-group differences in rates of errors of omission or commission or reaction time. Moreover, the MRI results indicated there were no between-group differences in neural circuitry activation during this task. The investigators therefore concluded that the tendency toward binge eating in the high–ADHD symptoms group was not tied to greater impulsivity as reflected in less effective inhibitory processes.

The food picture rating task told a different story. The MRIs demonstrated increased responses to food versus nonfood images in the high-ADHD subjects, compared with the low-ADHD subjects in reward-related brain areas, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area.

“This is the first evidence that ADHD symptoms in young adults are associated with enhanced neural activation in key reward-related brain areas in response to viewing food pictures,” according to Ms. Martin. “This suggests that enhanced responsiveness to food cues may be a mediating mechanism underlying overeating in ADHD.”

Of note, only one drug – lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (Vyvanse) is Food and Drug Administration-approved for the treatment of both ADHD and binge-eating disorder.

“Until now it’s been unclear how lisdexamfetamine dimesylate reduces binge eating, but our results suggest that one mechanism worthy of further investigation is the potential effect of the drug on food reward processes,” Ms. Martin said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by university funding.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Martin E. ECNP 2020. Abstr. P.041.

Romosozumab is a novel osteoporosis treatment agent that stimulates bone formation and inhibits bone resorption. Due to concerns for adverse cardiovascular effects, this medication is generally reserved for patients with severe osteoporosis despite multiple previous treatments. However, the influence of previous osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on romosozumab’s skeletal efficacy remains poorly studied, especially in real world clinical scenarios. In a prospective non-randomized study of 130 patients treated with romosozumab in Japan, the effects of romosozumab treatment on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed based on previous treatment with either no osteoporosis medication, bisphosphonates, denosumab, or teriparatide. In general, treatment-naïve individuals experienced superior spine BMD and bone turnover marker gains versus patients who had previously received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Notably, prior treatment with the potent anti-resorptive agent denosumab was associated with suboptimal spine BMD response to romosozumab. These results highlight the potential impact of previous anti-resorptive treatment on romosozumab efficacy and indicate that careful consideration of treatment sequence is warranted when deciding amongst the multiple osteoporosis agents that are currently available.

Denosumab is a potent anti-resorptive osteoporosis agent that works by neutralizing RANKL, the key cytokine that drives osteoclast differentiation. While effective at suppressing bone resorption, increasing BMD, and preventing fragility fractures when administered every 6 months, rapid discontinuation of denosumab has been associated with an increased risk of vertebral compression fractures. In routine clinical practice, denosumab injection delays are common. However, risks of vertebral fractures associated with such injection delays remain unknown. In this study of a UK population-based cohort of 2,594 patients, a large electronic database was used to assess the relationship between denosumab dosing intervals (defined as ‘on time’, ‘short delay’, and ‘long delay’) and fractures in the 6 month window after the recommended treatment date. Compared with ‘on time’ denosumab treatment, individuals who received delayed denosumab injections showed an increased risk of interval vertebral fractures. Notably, the delay time was associated with fracture risk. This powerful study design further underscores the importance of timely (every 6 months) denosumab injections. Given current health care delivery challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, these results should be considered when selecting initial osteoporosis treatment agents and in management of patients currently receiving denosumab. 

Abaloparatide, a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone related peptide (PTHrP) is a bone anabolic osteoporosis treatment agent. In the ACTIVE study, abaloparatide increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture risk compared to both placebo and teriparatide. Although abaloparatide is generally well-tolerated, non-serious adverse events have been reported such as dizziness and palpitations. PTHrP can act in a paracrine manner to cause vasodilation. Therefore, in this post hoc drug safety study, the effects of abaloparatide on blood pressure, pulse, and cardiovascular adverse events were assessed in detail in subjects from the ACTIVE study (one hour post treatment) plus an additional group of 55 subjects for more detailed hemodynamic assessment. Compared to placebo injection, both abaloparatide and teriparatide treatment caused mild and transient increases in pulse and decreases in systolic blood pressure. These mild hemodynamic changes were not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In general, these data are reassuring and support the cardiac safety of PTH analogs for osteoporosis. However, the transient hemodynamic changes observed should be considered for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or baseline problems with orthostasis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School

Romosozumab is a novel osteoporosis treatment agent that stimulates bone formation and inhibits bone resorption. Due to concerns for adverse cardiovascular effects, this medication is generally reserved for patients with severe osteoporosis despite multiple previous treatments. However, the influence of previous osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on romosozumab’s skeletal efficacy remains poorly studied, especially in real world clinical scenarios. In a prospective non-randomized study of 130 patients treated with romosozumab in Japan, the effects of romosozumab treatment on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed based on previous treatment with either no osteoporosis medication, bisphosphonates, denosumab, or teriparatide. In general, treatment-naïve individuals experienced superior spine BMD and bone turnover marker gains versus patients who had previously received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Notably, prior treatment with the potent anti-resorptive agent denosumab was associated with suboptimal spine BMD response to romosozumab. These results highlight the potential impact of previous anti-resorptive treatment on romosozumab efficacy and indicate that careful consideration of treatment sequence is warranted when deciding amongst the multiple osteoporosis agents that are currently available.

Denosumab is a potent anti-resorptive osteoporosis agent that works by neutralizing RANKL, the key cytokine that drives osteoclast differentiation. While effective at suppressing bone resorption, increasing BMD, and preventing fragility fractures when administered every 6 months, rapid discontinuation of denosumab has been associated with an increased risk of vertebral compression fractures. In routine clinical practice, denosumab injection delays are common. However, risks of vertebral fractures associated with such injection delays remain unknown. In this study of a UK population-based cohort of 2,594 patients, a large electronic database was used to assess the relationship between denosumab dosing intervals (defined as ‘on time’, ‘short delay’, and ‘long delay’) and fractures in the 6 month window after the recommended treatment date. Compared with ‘on time’ denosumab treatment, individuals who received delayed denosumab injections showed an increased risk of interval vertebral fractures. Notably, the delay time was associated with fracture risk. This powerful study design further underscores the importance of timely (every 6 months) denosumab injections. Given current health care delivery challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, these results should be considered when selecting initial osteoporosis treatment agents and in management of patients currently receiving denosumab. 

Abaloparatide, a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone related peptide (PTHrP) is a bone anabolic osteoporosis treatment agent. In the ACTIVE study, abaloparatide increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture risk compared to both placebo and teriparatide. Although abaloparatide is generally well-tolerated, non-serious adverse events have been reported such as dizziness and palpitations. PTHrP can act in a paracrine manner to cause vasodilation. Therefore, in this post hoc drug safety study, the effects of abaloparatide on blood pressure, pulse, and cardiovascular adverse events were assessed in detail in subjects from the ACTIVE study (one hour post treatment) plus an additional group of 55 subjects for more detailed hemodynamic assessment. Compared to placebo injection, both abaloparatide and teriparatide treatment caused mild and transient increases in pulse and decreases in systolic blood pressure. These mild hemodynamic changes were not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In general, these data are reassuring and support the cardiac safety of PTH analogs for osteoporosis. However, the transient hemodynamic changes observed should be considered for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or baseline problems with orthostasis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School

Romosozumab is a novel osteoporosis treatment agent that stimulates bone formation and inhibits bone resorption. Due to concerns for adverse cardiovascular effects, this medication is generally reserved for patients with severe osteoporosis despite multiple previous treatments. However, the influence of previous osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on romosozumab’s skeletal efficacy remains poorly studied, especially in real world clinical scenarios. In a prospective non-randomized study of 130 patients treated with romosozumab in Japan, the effects of romosozumab treatment on bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed based on previous treatment with either no osteoporosis medication, bisphosphonates, denosumab, or teriparatide. In general, treatment-naïve individuals experienced superior spine BMD and bone turnover marker gains versus patients who had previously received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Notably, prior treatment with the potent anti-resorptive agent denosumab was associated with suboptimal spine BMD response to romosozumab. These results highlight the potential impact of previous anti-resorptive treatment on romosozumab efficacy and indicate that careful consideration of treatment sequence is warranted when deciding amongst the multiple osteoporosis agents that are currently available.

Denosumab is a potent anti-resorptive osteoporosis agent that works by neutralizing RANKL, the key cytokine that drives osteoclast differentiation. While effective at suppressing bone resorption, increasing BMD, and preventing fragility fractures when administered every 6 months, rapid discontinuation of denosumab has been associated with an increased risk of vertebral compression fractures. In routine clinical practice, denosumab injection delays are common. However, risks of vertebral fractures associated with such injection delays remain unknown. In this study of a UK population-based cohort of 2,594 patients, a large electronic database was used to assess the relationship between denosumab dosing intervals (defined as ‘on time’, ‘short delay’, and ‘long delay’) and fractures in the 6 month window after the recommended treatment date. Compared with ‘on time’ denosumab treatment, individuals who received delayed denosumab injections showed an increased risk of interval vertebral fractures. Notably, the delay time was associated with fracture risk. This powerful study design further underscores the importance of timely (every 6 months) denosumab injections. Given current health care delivery challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, these results should be considered when selecting initial osteoporosis treatment agents and in management of patients currently receiving denosumab. 

Abaloparatide, a synthetic analog of parathyroid hormone related peptide (PTHrP) is a bone anabolic osteoporosis treatment agent. In the ACTIVE study, abaloparatide increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture risk compared to both placebo and teriparatide. Although abaloparatide is generally well-tolerated, non-serious adverse events have been reported such as dizziness and palpitations. PTHrP can act in a paracrine manner to cause vasodilation. Therefore, in this post hoc drug safety study, the effects of abaloparatide on blood pressure, pulse, and cardiovascular adverse events were assessed in detail in subjects from the ACTIVE study (one hour post treatment) plus an additional group of 55 subjects for more detailed hemodynamic assessment. Compared to placebo injection, both abaloparatide and teriparatide treatment caused mild and transient increases in pulse and decreases in systolic blood pressure. These mild hemodynamic changes were not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. In general, these data are reassuring and support the cardiac safety of PTH analogs for osteoporosis. However, the transient hemodynamic changes observed should be considered for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or baseline problems with orthostasis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School