“We cannot teach people to withhold judgment; judgments are embedded in the way we view objects. I do not see a “tree”; I see a pleasant or an ugly tree. It is not possible without great, paralyzing effort to strip these small values we attach to matters. Likewise, it is not possible to hold a situation in one’s head without some element of bias” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb, MBA, PhD, “The Black Swan.”

Each morning I see the hungry ghosts congregate at the end of the alley behind my office waiting for their addiction clinic appointments (Maté G. “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Close Encounters with Addiction” Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 2008). The fast food restaurant and the convenience store won’t let them linger, so there they sit on the curb in the saddest magpie’s row in the world. They have lip, nose, and eyebrow piercings, and lightning bolts tattooed up their cheeks. They all have backpacks, a few even rolling suitcases. They are opioid addicts, and almost all young, White adults. There they sit, once-innocent young girls, now worn and hardened, and vicious-looking young men, all with downcast empty eyes and miserable expressions. They are a frightening group marginalized by their addiction.
 

Opioid addiction became a national focus of attention with clarion calls for treatment, which resulted in legislative funding for treatment, restrictions on prescribing, and readily available Narcan. Physicians have greatly reduced their prescribing of narcotics and overdose death rates have dropped, but the drug crisis has not gone away, it has only been recently overshadowed by COVID-19.

The most ironic part of the current opioid epidemic and overdose deaths, and the other three bloodborne horsemen of death – endocarditis; hepatitis B, C, and D; and HIV – was that these scourges were affecting the Black community 40 years ago when, in my view, no one seemed to care. There was no addiction counseling, no treatment centers, and law enforcement would visit only with hopes of making a dealer’s arrest. Not until it became a White suburban issue, did this public health problem become recognized as something to act on. This is of course a result of racism, but there is a broader lesson here.

Humans may be naturally bigoted toward any marginalized or minority group. I recall working in the HIV clinic (before it was called HIV) in Dallas in the mid-1980s. The county refused to pay for zidovudine, which was very expensive at the time, and was sued to supply medication for a group marginalized by their sexual orientation. The AIDS epidemic was initially ignored, with the virus spreading to intravenous drug users and eventually to the broader population, which is when effective treatments became a priority.

Physicians and society should pay close attention to the ills of our marginalized communities. Because of isolation from health care, they are the medical canaries in the coal mine for all of us. Medical issues and infectious diseases identified there should be a priority and solutions sought and applied. This not only would benefit the marginalized group and ease their suffering, but would be salutary to society as a whole, because they surely will be coming everyone’s way.

COVID-19 highlights this. The working poor live in close quarters and most rely on crowded public transportation, and so a respiratory illness spreads rapidly in a population that cannot practically physically distance and probably cannot afford face masks, or alcohol hand gel.

As noted above, we have a persistent illegal drug epidemic. We also have a resurgence in venereal disease and tuberculosis, much of it drug resistant, which again is concentrated in our marginalized populations. Meanwhile, we have been cutting spending on public health, while we obviously need more resources devoted to public and community health.

When we step back and look, there are public health issues everywhere. We could eliminate 90% of cervical cancer and most of the oropharyngeal cancer with use of a very effective vaccine, but we struggle to get it paid for and to convince the public of its ultimate good.

Another example is in Ohio, where we raised the age to purchase tobacco to 21, which is laudable. But children of any age can still access tanning beds, which dramatically raises their lifetime risk of melanoma, often using a note from their “parents” that they write for each other on the car hood in the strip mall parking lot. This group of mostly young white women could also be considered a marginalized group despite their disposable income because of their belief in personal invincibility and false impressions of a tan conferring beauty and vitality repeated endlessly in their echo chamber of social media impressions.

Perhaps we should gauge the state of our public health by the health status of the most oppressed group of all, the incarcerated. Is it really possible that we don’t routinely test for and treat hepatitis C in many of our prisons? Is this indifference because the incarcerated are again a largely minority group and hepatitis C is spread by intravenous drug use?

Solutions and interventions for these problems range widely in cost, but all would eventually save the greater society money and alleviate great misery for those affected.

Perhaps we should be talking about the decriminalization of drug use. The drugs are already here and the consequences apparent, including overflowing prisons and out of control gun violence. This is a much thornier discussion, but seems at the root of many of our problems.

Bigotry is insidious and will take a long and continuing active effort to combat. As Dr. Taleb notes in the introductory quote, it requires a constant, tiring, deliberate mental effort to be mindful of one’s biases. As physicians, we have always been careful to try and treat all patients without bias, but this is not enough. We must become more insistent about the funding and application of public health measures.

Recognizing and treating the medical problems of our marginalized populations seems a doable first step while our greater society struggles with mental bias toward marginalized groups. Reducing the health burdens of these groups can only help them in their life struggles and will benefit all.

Someone once told me that the cold wind in the ghetto eventually blows out into the suburbs, and they were right. As physicians and a society, we should be insistent about correcting medical injustices beforehand. Let’s get started.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

“We cannot teach people to withhold judgment; judgments are embedded in the way we view objects. I do not see a “tree”; I see a pleasant or an ugly tree. It is not possible without great, paralyzing effort to strip these small values we attach to matters. Likewise, it is not possible to hold a situation in one’s head without some element of bias” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb, MBA, PhD, “The Black Swan.”

Each morning I see the hungry ghosts congregate at the end of the alley behind my office waiting for their addiction clinic appointments (Maté G. “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Close Encounters with Addiction” Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 2008). The fast food restaurant and the convenience store won’t let them linger, so there they sit on the curb in the saddest magpie’s row in the world. They have lip, nose, and eyebrow piercings, and lightning bolts tattooed up their cheeks. They all have backpacks, a few even rolling suitcases. They are opioid addicts, and almost all young, White adults. There they sit, once-innocent young girls, now worn and hardened, and vicious-looking young men, all with downcast empty eyes and miserable expressions. They are a frightening group marginalized by their addiction.
 

Opioid addiction became a national focus of attention with clarion calls for treatment, which resulted in legislative funding for treatment, restrictions on prescribing, and readily available Narcan. Physicians have greatly reduced their prescribing of narcotics and overdose death rates have dropped, but the drug crisis has not gone away, it has only been recently overshadowed by COVID-19.

The most ironic part of the current opioid epidemic and overdose deaths, and the other three bloodborne horsemen of death – endocarditis; hepatitis B, C, and D; and HIV – was that these scourges were affecting the Black community 40 years ago when, in my view, no one seemed to care. There was no addiction counseling, no treatment centers, and law enforcement would visit only with hopes of making a dealer’s arrest. Not until it became a White suburban issue, did this public health problem become recognized as something to act on. This is of course a result of racism, but there is a broader lesson here.

Humans may be naturally bigoted toward any marginalized or minority group. I recall working in the HIV clinic (before it was called HIV) in Dallas in the mid-1980s. The county refused to pay for zidovudine, which was very expensive at the time, and was sued to supply medication for a group marginalized by their sexual orientation. The AIDS epidemic was initially ignored, with the virus spreading to intravenous drug users and eventually to the broader population, which is when effective treatments became a priority.

Physicians and society should pay close attention to the ills of our marginalized communities. Because of isolation from health care, they are the medical canaries in the coal mine for all of us. Medical issues and infectious diseases identified there should be a priority and solutions sought and applied. This not only would benefit the marginalized group and ease their suffering, but would be salutary to society as a whole, because they surely will be coming everyone’s way.

COVID-19 highlights this. The working poor live in close quarters and most rely on crowded public transportation, and so a respiratory illness spreads rapidly in a population that cannot practically physically distance and probably cannot afford face masks, or alcohol hand gel.

As noted above, we have a persistent illegal drug epidemic. We also have a resurgence in venereal disease and tuberculosis, much of it drug resistant, which again is concentrated in our marginalized populations. Meanwhile, we have been cutting spending on public health, while we obviously need more resources devoted to public and community health.

When we step back and look, there are public health issues everywhere. We could eliminate 90% of cervical cancer and most of the oropharyngeal cancer with use of a very effective vaccine, but we struggle to get it paid for and to convince the public of its ultimate good.

Another example is in Ohio, where we raised the age to purchase tobacco to 21, which is laudable. But children of any age can still access tanning beds, which dramatically raises their lifetime risk of melanoma, often using a note from their “parents” that they write for each other on the car hood in the strip mall parking lot. This group of mostly young white women could also be considered a marginalized group despite their disposable income because of their belief in personal invincibility and false impressions of a tan conferring beauty and vitality repeated endlessly in their echo chamber of social media impressions.

Perhaps we should gauge the state of our public health by the health status of the most oppressed group of all, the incarcerated. Is it really possible that we don’t routinely test for and treat hepatitis C in many of our prisons? Is this indifference because the incarcerated are again a largely minority group and hepatitis C is spread by intravenous drug use?

Solutions and interventions for these problems range widely in cost, but all would eventually save the greater society money and alleviate great misery for those affected.

Perhaps we should be talking about the decriminalization of drug use. The drugs are already here and the consequences apparent, including overflowing prisons and out of control gun violence. This is a much thornier discussion, but seems at the root of many of our problems.

Bigotry is insidious and will take a long and continuing active effort to combat. As Dr. Taleb notes in the introductory quote, it requires a constant, tiring, deliberate mental effort to be mindful of one’s biases. As physicians, we have always been careful to try and treat all patients without bias, but this is not enough. We must become more insistent about the funding and application of public health measures.

Recognizing and treating the medical problems of our marginalized populations seems a doable first step while our greater society struggles with mental bias toward marginalized groups. Reducing the health burdens of these groups can only help them in their life struggles and will benefit all.

Someone once told me that the cold wind in the ghetto eventually blows out into the suburbs, and they were right. As physicians and a society, we should be insistent about correcting medical injustices beforehand. Let’s get started.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

“We cannot teach people to withhold judgment; judgments are embedded in the way we view objects. I do not see a “tree”; I see a pleasant or an ugly tree. It is not possible without great, paralyzing effort to strip these small values we attach to matters. Likewise, it is not possible to hold a situation in one’s head without some element of bias” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb, MBA, PhD, “The Black Swan.”

Each morning I see the hungry ghosts congregate at the end of the alley behind my office waiting for their addiction clinic appointments (Maté G. “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Close Encounters with Addiction” Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 2008). The fast food restaurant and the convenience store won’t let them linger, so there they sit on the curb in the saddest magpie’s row in the world. They have lip, nose, and eyebrow piercings, and lightning bolts tattooed up their cheeks. They all have backpacks, a few even rolling suitcases. They are opioid addicts, and almost all young, White adults. There they sit, once-innocent young girls, now worn and hardened, and vicious-looking young men, all with downcast empty eyes and miserable expressions. They are a frightening group marginalized by their addiction.
 

Opioid addiction became a national focus of attention with clarion calls for treatment, which resulted in legislative funding for treatment, restrictions on prescribing, and readily available Narcan. Physicians have greatly reduced their prescribing of narcotics and overdose death rates have dropped, but the drug crisis has not gone away, it has only been recently overshadowed by COVID-19.

The most ironic part of the current opioid epidemic and overdose deaths, and the other three bloodborne horsemen of death – endocarditis; hepatitis B, C, and D; and HIV – was that these scourges were affecting the Black community 40 years ago when, in my view, no one seemed to care. There was no addiction counseling, no treatment centers, and law enforcement would visit only with hopes of making a dealer’s arrest. Not until it became a White suburban issue, did this public health problem become recognized as something to act on. This is of course a result of racism, but there is a broader lesson here.

Humans may be naturally bigoted toward any marginalized or minority group. I recall working in the HIV clinic (before it was called HIV) in Dallas in the mid-1980s. The county refused to pay for zidovudine, which was very expensive at the time, and was sued to supply medication for a group marginalized by their sexual orientation. The AIDS epidemic was initially ignored, with the virus spreading to intravenous drug users and eventually to the broader population, which is when effective treatments became a priority.

Physicians and society should pay close attention to the ills of our marginalized communities. Because of isolation from health care, they are the medical canaries in the coal mine for all of us. Medical issues and infectious diseases identified there should be a priority and solutions sought and applied. This not only would benefit the marginalized group and ease their suffering, but would be salutary to society as a whole, because they surely will be coming everyone’s way.

COVID-19 highlights this. The working poor live in close quarters and most rely on crowded public transportation, and so a respiratory illness spreads rapidly in a population that cannot practically physically distance and probably cannot afford face masks, or alcohol hand gel.

As noted above, we have a persistent illegal drug epidemic. We also have a resurgence in venereal disease and tuberculosis, much of it drug resistant, which again is concentrated in our marginalized populations. Meanwhile, we have been cutting spending on public health, while we obviously need more resources devoted to public and community health.

When we step back and look, there are public health issues everywhere. We could eliminate 90% of cervical cancer and most of the oropharyngeal cancer with use of a very effective vaccine, but we struggle to get it paid for and to convince the public of its ultimate good.

Another example is in Ohio, where we raised the age to purchase tobacco to 21, which is laudable. But children of any age can still access tanning beds, which dramatically raises their lifetime risk of melanoma, often using a note from their “parents” that they write for each other on the car hood in the strip mall parking lot. This group of mostly young white women could also be considered a marginalized group despite their disposable income because of their belief in personal invincibility and false impressions of a tan conferring beauty and vitality repeated endlessly in their echo chamber of social media impressions.

Perhaps we should gauge the state of our public health by the health status of the most oppressed group of all, the incarcerated. Is it really possible that we don’t routinely test for and treat hepatitis C in many of our prisons? Is this indifference because the incarcerated are again a largely minority group and hepatitis C is spread by intravenous drug use?

Solutions and interventions for these problems range widely in cost, but all would eventually save the greater society money and alleviate great misery for those affected.

Perhaps we should be talking about the decriminalization of drug use. The drugs are already here and the consequences apparent, including overflowing prisons and out of control gun violence. This is a much thornier discussion, but seems at the root of many of our problems.

Bigotry is insidious and will take a long and continuing active effort to combat. As Dr. Taleb notes in the introductory quote, it requires a constant, tiring, deliberate mental effort to be mindful of one’s biases. As physicians, we have always been careful to try and treat all patients without bias, but this is not enough. We must become more insistent about the funding and application of public health measures.

Recognizing and treating the medical problems of our marginalized populations seems a doable first step while our greater society struggles with mental bias toward marginalized groups. Reducing the health burdens of these groups can only help them in their life struggles and will benefit all.

Someone once told me that the cold wind in the ghetto eventually blows out into the suburbs, and they were right. As physicians and a society, we should be insistent about correcting medical injustices beforehand. Let’s get started.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A growing number of psychiatrists in the United States no longer accept insurance and will only see patients who can pay upfront, out-of-pocket for office visits, a new trends analysis shows.

Ivy Benjenk, BSN, MPH, and Jie Chen, PhD, from the University of Maryland, College Park, wrote that psychiatrists may be more likely than other specialties to adopt a self-pay-only model because of low insurance reimbursement rates, particularly for psychotherapy, as well as a demand for psychiatric services that outstrips supply.

There is a “limited supply” of psychiatrists in the United States and a “great deal of administrative hoops that go into accepting insurance for pretty minimal payment. So it makes some sense for psychiatrists to move entirely into the self-pay market,” Ms. Benjenk said in an interview.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Barrier to care

To explore patterns in self-payment for office-based psychiatric services and changes over time, the researchers analyzed data from 2007 to 2016 from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative survey of physicians who were not federally employed, were office based, and were primarily engaged in direct patient care.

Of 15,790 psychiatrist visits, 3445 (21.8%) were self-paid by patients, compared with 4336 of 119,749 primary care clinician visits (3.6%).

Of the 750 psychiatrists in the sample, 146 (19.5%) were reimbursed predominantly by self-payment, compared with 69 of 4,294 primary care clinicians (1.6%).

The percentage of self-paid psychiatrist office visits has trended upward (from 18.5% in 2007-2009 to 26.7% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of self-paid primary care visits has trended downward (from 4.1% in 2007-2009 to 2.8% in 2014-2016).

The percentage of psychiatrists who work in predominantly self-pay practices has also trended upward (from 16.4% in 2007-2009 to 26.4% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of primary care clinicians who work in predominantly self-pay practices has not changed significantly (from 1.5% to 1.7%).

Psychiatrists who are reimbursed predominantly by self-payment were more likely to work in solo practices than group practices. Most self-pay psychiatry patients were White men.

Self-pay visits lasted longer than visits paid for by a third party (average duration, 38.3 min vs. 28.8 min; P < .001). Self-pay patients also made more visits to their psychiatrist than patients with third-party payers (mean, 18.3 visits vs. 9.4 visits in preceding 12 months; P < .001).

Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen wrote that self-pay psychiatry is a “hurdle many patients cannot surmount,” even if a portion of that payment is eventually paid by insurance.

“Either they have to pay out-of-pocket entirely or try to bill their insurance after the fact. It’s a lot of work to try to get an insurance company to pay for something after the fact. I couldn’t imagine someone who’s depressed or having some other psychiatric comorbidities actually go through the rigmarole of getting that done,” Ms. Benjenk said.

Ms. Benjenk believes that, with COVID-19 and a large shift to telepsychiatry, more psychiatrists might be interested in accepting insurance because they may be able to see more patients in a day.

“With telehealth, psychiatrists also can practice anywhere in their state, so that opens up a whole new pool of patients. And it’s cost saving; they don’t have to travel to an office, worry about office space or about no-shows, and there can be less lag time between appointments,” Ms. Benjenk said.

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A growing number of psychiatrists in the United States no longer accept insurance and will only see patients who can pay upfront, out-of-pocket for office visits, a new trends analysis shows.

Ivy Benjenk, BSN, MPH, and Jie Chen, PhD, from the University of Maryland, College Park, wrote that psychiatrists may be more likely than other specialties to adopt a self-pay-only model because of low insurance reimbursement rates, particularly for psychotherapy, as well as a demand for psychiatric services that outstrips supply.

There is a “limited supply” of psychiatrists in the United States and a “great deal of administrative hoops that go into accepting insurance for pretty minimal payment. So it makes some sense for psychiatrists to move entirely into the self-pay market,” Ms. Benjenk said in an interview.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Barrier to care

To explore patterns in self-payment for office-based psychiatric services and changes over time, the researchers analyzed data from 2007 to 2016 from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative survey of physicians who were not federally employed, were office based, and were primarily engaged in direct patient care.

Of 15,790 psychiatrist visits, 3445 (21.8%) were self-paid by patients, compared with 4336 of 119,749 primary care clinician visits (3.6%).

Of the 750 psychiatrists in the sample, 146 (19.5%) were reimbursed predominantly by self-payment, compared with 69 of 4,294 primary care clinicians (1.6%).

The percentage of self-paid psychiatrist office visits has trended upward (from 18.5% in 2007-2009 to 26.7% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of self-paid primary care visits has trended downward (from 4.1% in 2007-2009 to 2.8% in 2014-2016).

The percentage of psychiatrists who work in predominantly self-pay practices has also trended upward (from 16.4% in 2007-2009 to 26.4% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of primary care clinicians who work in predominantly self-pay practices has not changed significantly (from 1.5% to 1.7%).

Psychiatrists who are reimbursed predominantly by self-payment were more likely to work in solo practices than group practices. Most self-pay psychiatry patients were White men.

Self-pay visits lasted longer than visits paid for by a third party (average duration, 38.3 min vs. 28.8 min; P < .001). Self-pay patients also made more visits to their psychiatrist than patients with third-party payers (mean, 18.3 visits vs. 9.4 visits in preceding 12 months; P < .001).

Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen wrote that self-pay psychiatry is a “hurdle many patients cannot surmount,” even if a portion of that payment is eventually paid by insurance.

“Either they have to pay out-of-pocket entirely or try to bill their insurance after the fact. It’s a lot of work to try to get an insurance company to pay for something after the fact. I couldn’t imagine someone who’s depressed or having some other psychiatric comorbidities actually go through the rigmarole of getting that done,” Ms. Benjenk said.

Ms. Benjenk believes that, with COVID-19 and a large shift to telepsychiatry, more psychiatrists might be interested in accepting insurance because they may be able to see more patients in a day.

“With telehealth, psychiatrists also can practice anywhere in their state, so that opens up a whole new pool of patients. And it’s cost saving; they don’t have to travel to an office, worry about office space or about no-shows, and there can be less lag time between appointments,” Ms. Benjenk said.

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A growing number of psychiatrists in the United States no longer accept insurance and will only see patients who can pay upfront, out-of-pocket for office visits, a new trends analysis shows.

Ivy Benjenk, BSN, MPH, and Jie Chen, PhD, from the University of Maryland, College Park, wrote that psychiatrists may be more likely than other specialties to adopt a self-pay-only model because of low insurance reimbursement rates, particularly for psychotherapy, as well as a demand for psychiatric services that outstrips supply.

There is a “limited supply” of psychiatrists in the United States and a “great deal of administrative hoops that go into accepting insurance for pretty minimal payment. So it makes some sense for psychiatrists to move entirely into the self-pay market,” Ms. Benjenk said in an interview.

The study was published online July 15 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Barrier to care

To explore patterns in self-payment for office-based psychiatric services and changes over time, the researchers analyzed data from 2007 to 2016 from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative survey of physicians who were not federally employed, were office based, and were primarily engaged in direct patient care.

Of 15,790 psychiatrist visits, 3445 (21.8%) were self-paid by patients, compared with 4336 of 119,749 primary care clinician visits (3.6%).

Of the 750 psychiatrists in the sample, 146 (19.5%) were reimbursed predominantly by self-payment, compared with 69 of 4,294 primary care clinicians (1.6%).

The percentage of self-paid psychiatrist office visits has trended upward (from 18.5% in 2007-2009 to 26.7% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of self-paid primary care visits has trended downward (from 4.1% in 2007-2009 to 2.8% in 2014-2016).

The percentage of psychiatrists who work in predominantly self-pay practices has also trended upward (from 16.4% in 2007-2009 to 26.4% in 2014-2016), whereas the percentage of primary care clinicians who work in predominantly self-pay practices has not changed significantly (from 1.5% to 1.7%).

Psychiatrists who are reimbursed predominantly by self-payment were more likely to work in solo practices than group practices. Most self-pay psychiatry patients were White men.

Self-pay visits lasted longer than visits paid for by a third party (average duration, 38.3 min vs. 28.8 min; P < .001). Self-pay patients also made more visits to their psychiatrist than patients with third-party payers (mean, 18.3 visits vs. 9.4 visits in preceding 12 months; P < .001).

Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen wrote that self-pay psychiatry is a “hurdle many patients cannot surmount,” even if a portion of that payment is eventually paid by insurance.

“Either they have to pay out-of-pocket entirely or try to bill their insurance after the fact. It’s a lot of work to try to get an insurance company to pay for something after the fact. I couldn’t imagine someone who’s depressed or having some other psychiatric comorbidities actually go through the rigmarole of getting that done,” Ms. Benjenk said.

Ms. Benjenk believes that, with COVID-19 and a large shift to telepsychiatry, more psychiatrists might be interested in accepting insurance because they may be able to see more patients in a day.

“With telehealth, psychiatrists also can practice anywhere in their state, so that opens up a whole new pool of patients. And it’s cost saving; they don’t have to travel to an office, worry about office space or about no-shows, and there can be less lag time between appointments,” Ms. Benjenk said.

The study had no specific funding. Ms. Benjenk and Dr. Chen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 cases mounted in Texas in late June, a local Houston news station shadowed Joseph Varon, MD, making rounds in the intensive care unit at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston. An unseen newscaster tells viewers that Varon credits his success against COVID-19 so far to an experimental and “controversial” drug protocol consisting of vitamins, steroids, and blood thinners.

“This is war. There’s no time to double-blind anything,” Varon tells the camera. “This is working. And if it’s working, I’m going to keep on doing it.”

Varon is one of 10 physicians behind the protocol known as MATH+, which in media interviews and congressional testimony they say has worked to treat COVID-19 patients and save lives in their intensive care units across the country. But response to the protocol among other critical care physicians is mixed, with several physicians, in interviews with Medscape Medical News, urging caution because the benefits and relative risks of the combined medications have not been tested in randomized control trials.

From the earliest days of the pandemic, there’s been tension between the need for rigorous scientific study to understand a novel disease, which takes time, and the need to treat seriously ill patients immediately. Some treatments, like hydroxychloroquine, were promoted without randomized clinical trial data and then later were shown to be ineffective or even potentially harmful when tested.

“This pandemic has shown us there’s lots of ideas out there and they need to be tested and a theoretical basis is insufficient,” says Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The ups and downs with hydroxychloroquine offer a sobering example, he says. “I would argue we have an ethical obligation to do randomized controlled trials to see if our treatments work.”
 

Creating MATH+

MATH+ stands for methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin. The “+” holds a place for additional therapies like vitamin D, zinc, and melatonin. The protocol originated as a variation of the “HAT therapy,” a combination of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine, which critical care specialist Paul Marik, MD, created for treating critically ill patients with sepsis.

Over a few weeks, the protocol evolved as Marik, chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, emailed with a small group of colleagues about treatments and their observations of SARS-CoV-2 in action, swapping in methylprednisolone and adding the anticoagulant heparin.

When Marik and colleagues created the protocol in early March, many healthcare organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) were advising against steroids for COVID-19 patients. The MATH+ physicians decided they needed to spread a different message, and began publicizing the protocol with a website and a small communications team.

Marik says they tried to get their protocol in front of healthcare organizations – including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health – but received no response. Marik went on Newt Gingrich’s podcast to discuss the protocol in the hopes it would make its way to the White House.

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin saw the protocol and invited Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, who practices in Johnson’s home state, to testify remotely in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Kory is a pulmonary critical care specialist about to start a new job at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.

In his testimony, Kory shared his positive experience using the protocol to treat patients and expressed his dismay that national healthcare organizations came out against the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 from the early days of the pandemic based on what he called a “tragic error in analysis of medical data.” Although an analysis by national organizations suggested corticosteroids might be dangerous in COVID-19 patients, one of his colleagues came to the opposite conclusion, he said. But these organizations advised supportive care only, and against steroids. “We think that is a fatal and tragic flaw,” Kory said.

“The problem with the protocol early on was that it was heresy,” says Kory, referring to the protocol’s inclusion of corticosteroids before official treatment guidelines. During the height of the pandemic in New York this spring, Kory spent 5 weeks working in the ICU at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. Seeing patients flounder on supportive care, Kory says he used MATH+ successfully during his time in New York, using escalating and pulse doses of corticosteroids to stabilize rapidly deteriorating patients.

The website’s home page initially included an invitation for visitors to donate money to support “getting word of this effective treatment protocol out to physicians and hospitals around the world.” After Medscape Medical News brought up the donation prompt in questions, the physicians decided to remove all calls for donations from the website and social media, communications representative Betsy Ashton said. “Critics are misinterpreting this as some kind of fund-raising operation, when that could hardly be the case,” Ashton said in an email. “They are horrified that anyone would impugn their motives.”

Donations paid for the website designer, webmaster, and her work, Ashton said, and the physicians now have donors who will support publicizing the protocol without online calls for donations. “We have no commercial or vested interest,” Marik said. “I’m not going to make a single cent out of this and it’s obviously very time-consuming.”
 

The basis for the protocol

The protocol is based on common sense, an understanding of scientific literature, and an understanding of COVID-19, Marik says. The website includes links to past research trials and observational studies examining ascorbic acid and thiamine in critically ill patients and early looks at anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients.

They chose methylprednisolone as their corticosteroid based on the expertise of group member G. Umberto Meduri, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee, who had found the steroid effective in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the MATH+ website, the physicians link to multiple observational studies posted on preprint servers in April and May that suggest methylprednisolone helped COVID-19 patients.

“What’s happened with time is all the elements have been validated by scientific studies, which makes this so cool,” says Marik. The RECOVERY Trial results in particular validated the push to use corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients, he says. But that study used a different steroid, dexamethasone, in much smaller doses than what MATH+ recommends. Revised guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends dexamethasone for severely ill patients, but says methylprednisolone and prednisone can be used as substitutes at equivalent doses.

Marik and Kory say that mortality rates for COVID-19 patients at their respective hospitals decreased after they began using the protocol. The physicians have been collecting observational data on their patients, but have not yet published any, and do not plan to conduct a randomized trial.

Several physicians who were not involved in the creation of the protocol say the evidence the physicians cite is not robust enough to warrant the promotion of MATH+ and call for randomized controlled trials. Coming up with a protocol is fine, says Kaul, but “you have to do the hard work of doing a randomized control trial to determine if those drugs given in those combinations work or not.”

“When I looked at it, I thought it was actually not very evidence based,” says Michelle Gong, MD, chief of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Montefiore Health System in New York City. “It is not something I would recommend for my doctors to do outside of a clinical trial.”

The protocol authors push back against the necessity and feasibility of randomized control trials.

There is no time for a randomized control trial right now, says Jose Iglesias, DO, associate professor at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall and critical care specialist at Community Medical Center and Jersey Shore University Medical Center in New Jersey. “Time is limited. We’re busy bedside clinicians taking care of patients, and patients who are dying.”

Marik argues there is not equipoise: It wouldn’t be ethical to randomize patients in a placebo group when the physicians are confident the steroids will help. And the protocol is personalized for each patient, making the standardization required for a randomized control trial incredibly difficult, he says. He also cites “the people who are unwilling to accept our results and just think it’s too good to be true.”

Hugh Cassiere, MD, director of critical care medicine at Northwell Health’s North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York, said he finds it “very disturbing that this is being propagated.” In the context of a pandemic in which physicians from other specialties are helping out colleagues in ICUs and might follow the protocol uncritically, he worries, “this could potentially lead to harm.”

“I understand the intention; everybody wants to do something, these patients are so sick and the crisis so sharp that we all want to do something to make patients better,” Gong said. “But as physicians taking care of patients we need to make sure we separate the noise from the evidence.”
 

Peer review

The physicians who reviewed MATH+ for Medscape Medical News differed on which parts of the protocol they support and which parts they would change.

Dexamethasone should be the corticosteroid of choice over methylprednisolone, says Cassiere, because it has now been proven effective in the randomized RECOVERY Trial, which also tested dosing and a timetable for treatment.

But Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, thinks methylprednisolone may be effective, and that even higher doses over longer periods of time may stave off recurring pneumonia, based on his experience using the steroid to treat COVID-19 patients in New York.

“What I really like about this protocol is, these guys are very smart, they recommend the need to treat multiple different things at the same time,” says Parnia. COVID-19 is a complex condition, he notes: If physicians are only focused on solving one problem, like hypoxia, patients could still be dying from blood clots.

Despite general concerns about the protocol, Cassiere says he was excited about the inclusion of heparin. Given the extreme levels of clotting seen in COVID-19 patients, he would have included specific D-dimer levels to guide treatment and explored antiplatelet therapies like aspirin. Gong, however, cautioned that she had seen her patients on anticoagulants develop gastrointestinal bleeding, and reiterated the need for clinical evidence. (At least one clinical trial is currently testing the risks and benefits of heparin as an antithrombotic therapy for COVID-19 patients.)

Perhaps the most divisive part of the protocol is the inclusion of ascorbic acid. “That’s the civil war,” says Kory. “It’s the most polarizing medicine.” The authors of the MATH+ protocol were close colleagues before COVID-19 in part because of a mutual research interest in ascorbic acid, he says. Other physicians, including Cassiere, are extremely skeptical that ascorbic acid has any effect, citing recently published studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found ascorbic acid ineffective for treating sepsis.

The MATH+ creators say they are working on a literature review of the research behind the protocol, and they plan to write up the observational impacts of the protocol. Marik says he’s not optimistic about getting the findings published in a high-impact journal given the observational nature of the research; the relatively small number of patients treated at hospitals using the protocol (140 patients at Marik’s hospital in Virginia and 180 at Varon’s in Houston, according to Marik); and the vast number of COVID-19 papers being submitted to scientific journals right now.

“This is not a remedy with expensive designer drugs,” Marik said. “No one has any interest in treating patients with cheap, safe, readily available drugs.”

“I hope they’re right if they’re saying this combination of medicines dramatically decreases mortality,” says Taison Bell, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit and assistant professor of medicine at UVA Health in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But physicians have hurt patients in the past with medications they hoped would work, he says. “We have to make sure we’re balancing the risk and the harm with that benefit, and the only way to protect patients from those biases is by doing a randomized controlled trial.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand GERD and available treatment options by sharing the AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/ol2r30qYPpk.

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

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand GERD and available treatment options by sharing the AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/ol2r30qYPpk.

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

People who use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be more likely to get COVID-19, researchers say.

In light of this finding, physicians should consider which patients truly need these powerful acid-lowering drugs, said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, professor of medicine and public health at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, Calif.

“All it means is that we’re going to have a conversation with our patients,” he said in an interview. “We don’t normally have that conversation because we don’t live in an environment with a high risk of enteric infection. But now we’re in a pandemic.”

The study by Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues was published online on July 7 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Use of PPIs has skyrocketed over the past 2 decades. For ambulatory care visits, their use increased from 1.6% in 1998 to 7.6% in 2015. The increase raised questions about overprescription.

Although studies have not borne out many of the other concerns raised about adverse reactions, they have shown that the drugs increase the risk for enteric infections, including infections by SARS-CoV-1, a virus that is related to the COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Spiegel said.

SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme–2 receptor to invade enterocytes. Dr. Spiegel theorized that an increase in stomach pH above 3 as a result of use of PPIs might allow the virus to enter the GI tract more easily, leading to enteritis, colitis, and systemic spread to other organs, including the lungs. “There is a reason we have acid in our stomachs,” Dr. Spiegel said.

To see how PPI use relates to COVID-19 infections, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues surveyed online a nationally representative sample of Americans between May 3 and June 24, 2020, as part of a larger survey on gastroenterologic health.

Participants answered questions about gastrointestinal symptoms, current use of PPIs, and COVID-19 test results. They also answered questions about histamine-2 receptor agonists (H₂RAs), also known as H₂ blockers, which are used to treat some of the same conditions as PPIs but that do not reduce stomach acid as much.

The surveying firm, Cint, contacted 264,058 people. Of the 86,602 eligible participants who completed the survey, 53,130 said they had experienced abdominal discomfort, acid reflux, heartburn, or regurgitation. These survey participants were subsequently asked about PPI and H₂RA use.

Of these, 6.4% reported testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, U.S. region, insurance status, and the presence of irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, liver cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS.

After adjusting for these factors, the researchers found that those who took PPIs up to once a day were twice as likely to have had a positive COVID-19 test result than those who did not take the drugs (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.44).

Those who took PPIs twice a day were almost four times as likely to have tested positive for the disease (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 2.93-4.60).

By contrast, those taking H₂RA drugs once daily were 15% less likely to report a positive COVID-19 test result (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). Research is currently underway to determine whether H₂RAs might protect against the disease for reasons unrelated to pH balance.

Dr. Spiegel cautioned that the current data show only an association between PPI use and COVID-19 positivity; it cannot prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiegel said the findings should encourage physicians to prescribe PPIs only when clearly indicated. “If somebody is not yet on a PPI and you’re considering whether to start them on a PPI, it’s a good idea to consider H₂ blockers,” he said.

People who need a daily dose of a PPI to control a severe condition can safely continue doing so, but such patients should take care to follow standard public health recommendations for avoiding exposure to the virus. These recommendations include wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and washing hands frequently.

“People who are older, comorbid, or smokers – if they get infected, it could be severe,” he said. “[For] someone like that, it’s reasonable to ask, do we really need to be on twice-daily PPIs? There is good evidence that they are no better off than if they are taking once-daily doses.”

Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed that the study should prompt physicians to take a second look at their patients’ PPI prescriptions. “My view is that PPIs are frequently overused, and maybe this is one more piece of data that, if someone is on PPIs, maybe they don’t need to be on this medication.”

On the other hand, the drugs are important for treating conditions such as erosive esophagitis and healing ulcers, he said. The overall risk of contracting COVID-19 is low, so even this finding of a 3.7-fold increased risk should not lead patients or providers to stop taking or prescribing PPIs.

The study also lends support to the idea that the gastrointestinal tract could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and it supports warnings about aerosols emitted from flushing toilets and through exhalation, Dr. Spiegel said. There is less evidence of the virus being transmitted through food. “It may not be fecal-oral; it may be fecal-respiratory,” he said.

The study was part of a larger project funded by Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Spiegel reported relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lacy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand GERD and available treatment options by sharing the AGA patient education at http://ow.ly/ol2r30qYPpk.

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

Factor VIII expression was detected on liver biopsies at more than 2 years after a single infusion of adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy for hemophilia A in two patients who were part of a recent phase 1/2 study and who participated in an optional liver biopsy substudy.

The persistent factor VIII (FVIII) expression seen in the two patients was consistent with the presence of circularized, full-length human FVIII-SQ DNA in the biopsy samples and was observed in one patients at week 201 after infusion with 6 x 10¹² vg/kg of the AAV serotype 5 human FVIII-SQ gene therapy(valoctocogene roxaparvovec) and in another at week 140 after infusion with 4×10¹³ vg/kg, Sylvia Fong, PhD, reported during the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.

The first patient had no FVIII detected in the plasma at the time of biopsy. The second had 28.4% of normal FVIII activity detected at the time of biopsy, said Dr. Fong of BioMarin Pharmaceutical, noting that alanine aminotransferase levels were normal at the time of biopsy for both subjects.

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is currently being evaluated in a phase 3 clinical study,” Dr. Fong said. “Data from the phase 1/2 trial have demonstrated preliminary proof of concept that valoctocogene roxaparvovec treatment, in many cases, eliminated spontaneous bleeds and the need for prophylactic factor VIII replacement.

“In addition, an acceptable safety profile was observed.”

Data from that trial were presented at the World Federation of Hemophilia virtual summit in June.
 

Liver biopsy for factor VIII expression

The current exploratory liver biopsy substudy – the first-in-human liver biopsy study after gene therapy for hemophilia A – was open to all phase 1/2 study participants and was initiated in September 2019 with multiple aims, including improved understanding of the durability and variability of AAV gene therapy, she explained.

Histopathological examination revealed normal liver architecture with mild steatosis and no evidence of steatohepatitis or significant inflammation in either participant. In the 6×10¹² vg/kg– and 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participants, a dose-dependent increase was seen in the percentage of hepatocytes that stained positive for vector genomes (1.3% and 32%, respectively), she said.

“This was very exciting to see,” she said, referring to the 32% stain-positive rate in the patient who received the 4x10¹³ vg/kg dose. “Not only were we able to detect vector genomes more than 2 years post-dose, there seems to be quite a bit of signals in this patient sample.”

The findings were similar to those seen in preclinical nonhuman primate models, she noted.

Dose-dependent increases were also seen in quantities of circular full-length/ITR-fused vector genomes and in FVIII-SQ RNA vector genomes; liver hFVIII-SQ RNA levels were 7.67×10² copies/mcg and 6.77×10⁴ copies/µg in the 6×10¹² vg/kg–treated participant the 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participant, respectively.

The circularized genomes were present as monomers and concatemers in both participants, and “were presumably associated with long-term expression,” Dr. Fong said.

Both participants are clinically stable with no long-term hepatic issues, she said, noting that analyses of results from additional participants in the substudy will be shared as they become available.

To date, because of “precious small amounts” of tissue available from the biopsy samples, Dr. Fong said she and her colleagues had not looked for degradation of the vectors.

Session moderator Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes, MD, of Centre de recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, asked: “Is there a plan [to do so] or not, because I guess it’s a very important point,” to which Dr. Fong said that it is a possibility if adequate samples become available.

Dr. Fong is an employee of BioMarin Pharmaceuticals.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fong S. 2020 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 03.4.

Factor VIII expression was detected on liver biopsies at more than 2 years after a single infusion of adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy for hemophilia A in two patients who were part of a recent phase 1/2 study and who participated in an optional liver biopsy substudy.

The persistent factor VIII (FVIII) expression seen in the two patients was consistent with the presence of circularized, full-length human FVIII-SQ DNA in the biopsy samples and was observed in one patients at week 201 after infusion with 6 x 10¹² vg/kg of the AAV serotype 5 human FVIII-SQ gene therapy(valoctocogene roxaparvovec) and in another at week 140 after infusion with 4×10¹³ vg/kg, Sylvia Fong, PhD, reported during the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.

The first patient had no FVIII detected in the plasma at the time of biopsy. The second had 28.4% of normal FVIII activity detected at the time of biopsy, said Dr. Fong of BioMarin Pharmaceutical, noting that alanine aminotransferase levels were normal at the time of biopsy for both subjects.

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is currently being evaluated in a phase 3 clinical study,” Dr. Fong said. “Data from the phase 1/2 trial have demonstrated preliminary proof of concept that valoctocogene roxaparvovec treatment, in many cases, eliminated spontaneous bleeds and the need for prophylactic factor VIII replacement.

“In addition, an acceptable safety profile was observed.”

Data from that trial were presented at the World Federation of Hemophilia virtual summit in June.
 

Liver biopsy for factor VIII expression

The current exploratory liver biopsy substudy – the first-in-human liver biopsy study after gene therapy for hemophilia A – was open to all phase 1/2 study participants and was initiated in September 2019 with multiple aims, including improved understanding of the durability and variability of AAV gene therapy, she explained.

Histopathological examination revealed normal liver architecture with mild steatosis and no evidence of steatohepatitis or significant inflammation in either participant. In the 6×10¹² vg/kg– and 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participants, a dose-dependent increase was seen in the percentage of hepatocytes that stained positive for vector genomes (1.3% and 32%, respectively), she said.

“This was very exciting to see,” she said, referring to the 32% stain-positive rate in the patient who received the 4x10¹³ vg/kg dose. “Not only were we able to detect vector genomes more than 2 years post-dose, there seems to be quite a bit of signals in this patient sample.”

The findings were similar to those seen in preclinical nonhuman primate models, she noted.

Dose-dependent increases were also seen in quantities of circular full-length/ITR-fused vector genomes and in FVIII-SQ RNA vector genomes; liver hFVIII-SQ RNA levels were 7.67×10² copies/mcg and 6.77×10⁴ copies/µg in the 6×10¹² vg/kg–treated participant the 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participant, respectively.

The circularized genomes were present as monomers and concatemers in both participants, and “were presumably associated with long-term expression,” Dr. Fong said.

Both participants are clinically stable with no long-term hepatic issues, she said, noting that analyses of results from additional participants in the substudy will be shared as they become available.

To date, because of “precious small amounts” of tissue available from the biopsy samples, Dr. Fong said she and her colleagues had not looked for degradation of the vectors.

Session moderator Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes, MD, of Centre de recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, asked: “Is there a plan [to do so] or not, because I guess it’s a very important point,” to which Dr. Fong said that it is a possibility if adequate samples become available.

Dr. Fong is an employee of BioMarin Pharmaceuticals.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fong S. 2020 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 03.4.

Factor VIII expression was detected on liver biopsies at more than 2 years after a single infusion of adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy for hemophilia A in two patients who were part of a recent phase 1/2 study and who participated in an optional liver biopsy substudy.

The persistent factor VIII (FVIII) expression seen in the two patients was consistent with the presence of circularized, full-length human FVIII-SQ DNA in the biopsy samples and was observed in one patients at week 201 after infusion with 6 x 10¹² vg/kg of the AAV serotype 5 human FVIII-SQ gene therapy(valoctocogene roxaparvovec) and in another at week 140 after infusion with 4×10¹³ vg/kg, Sylvia Fong, PhD, reported during the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.

The first patient had no FVIII detected in the plasma at the time of biopsy. The second had 28.4% of normal FVIII activity detected at the time of biopsy, said Dr. Fong of BioMarin Pharmaceutical, noting that alanine aminotransferase levels were normal at the time of biopsy for both subjects.

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is currently being evaluated in a phase 3 clinical study,” Dr. Fong said. “Data from the phase 1/2 trial have demonstrated preliminary proof of concept that valoctocogene roxaparvovec treatment, in many cases, eliminated spontaneous bleeds and the need for prophylactic factor VIII replacement.

“In addition, an acceptable safety profile was observed.”

Data from that trial were presented at the World Federation of Hemophilia virtual summit in June.
 

Liver biopsy for factor VIII expression

The current exploratory liver biopsy substudy – the first-in-human liver biopsy study after gene therapy for hemophilia A – was open to all phase 1/2 study participants and was initiated in September 2019 with multiple aims, including improved understanding of the durability and variability of AAV gene therapy, she explained.

Histopathological examination revealed normal liver architecture with mild steatosis and no evidence of steatohepatitis or significant inflammation in either participant. In the 6×10¹² vg/kg– and 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participants, a dose-dependent increase was seen in the percentage of hepatocytes that stained positive for vector genomes (1.3% and 32%, respectively), she said.

“This was very exciting to see,” she said, referring to the 32% stain-positive rate in the patient who received the 4x10¹³ vg/kg dose. “Not only were we able to detect vector genomes more than 2 years post-dose, there seems to be quite a bit of signals in this patient sample.”

The findings were similar to those seen in preclinical nonhuman primate models, she noted.

Dose-dependent increases were also seen in quantities of circular full-length/ITR-fused vector genomes and in FVIII-SQ RNA vector genomes; liver hFVIII-SQ RNA levels were 7.67×10² copies/mcg and 6.77×10⁴ copies/µg in the 6×10¹² vg/kg–treated participant the 4×10¹³ vg/kg–treated participant, respectively.

The circularized genomes were present as monomers and concatemers in both participants, and “were presumably associated with long-term expression,” Dr. Fong said.

Both participants are clinically stable with no long-term hepatic issues, she said, noting that analyses of results from additional participants in the substudy will be shared as they become available.

To date, because of “precious small amounts” of tissue available from the biopsy samples, Dr. Fong said she and her colleagues had not looked for degradation of the vectors.

Session moderator Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes, MD, of Centre de recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, asked: “Is there a plan [to do so] or not, because I guess it’s a very important point,” to which Dr. Fong said that it is a possibility if adequate samples become available.

Dr. Fong is an employee of BioMarin Pharmaceuticals.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fong S. 2020 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 03.4.

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A new multicenter trial has yielded conflicting results regarding intranasal insulin’s ability to deliver cognitive and functional benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease. The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.

“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.

“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”

Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.

Important for brain function

Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.

“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.

In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”

Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.

As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.

Deeper dive

In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.

Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.

In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.

Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.

Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.

Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.

Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.

Better cognitive performance

A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.

The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.

Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.

In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).

Device type critical

These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.

The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.

“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.

The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”

Not a failure

Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”

For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.

“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

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

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

A trio of international expert recommendations mainly agree on essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome in adolescents, but some confusion persists, according to Robert L. Rosenfield, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

In a commentary published in the Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, Dr. Rosenfield, who convened one of the three conferences at which guidance was developed, noted that the three recommendations – published by the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the International Consortium of Paediatric Endocrinology, and the International PCOS Network in 2015, 2017, and 2018, respectively – “are fairly dense” and reviews have suggested a lack of agreement. His comments offer perspective and practice suggestions that follow the consensus of the recommendations.

“All the documents agree on the core diagnostic criteria for adolescent PCOS: otherwise unexplained evidence of ovulatory dysfunction, as indicated by menstrual abnormalities based on stage-appropriate standards, and evidence of an androgen excess disorder,” Dr. Rosenfield said.

The main differences among the recommendations from the three groups reflect tension between the value of an early diagnosis and the liabilities of a mistaken diagnosis in the context of attitudes about adolescent contraception. “These are issues not likely to be resolved easily, yet they are matters for every physician to consider in management of each case,” he said.

Dr. Rosenfield emphasized that clinicians must consider PCOS “in the general context of all causes of adolescent menstrual disturbances,” when evaluating a girl within 1-2 years of menarche who presents with a menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, and/or acne that has been resistant to topical treatment.

A key point on which the recommendations differ is whether further assessment is needed if the menstrual abnormality has persisted for 1 year (the 2018 recommendations) or 2 years (the 2015 and 2017 recommendations), Dr. Rosenfield explained. “What the conferees struggled with is differentiating how long after menarche a menstrual abnormality should persist to avoid confusing PCOS with normal immaturity of the menstrual cycle,” known as physiologic adolescent anovulation (PAA). “The degree of certainty is improved only modestly by waiting 2 years rather than 1 year to make a diagnosis.”

However, the three documents agree that girls suspected of having PCOS within the first 1-2 years after menarche should be evaluated at that time, and followed with a diagnosis of “at risk for PCOS” if the early test results are consistent with a PCOS diagnosis, he said.

Another point of difference among the groups is the extent to which hirsutism and acne represent clinical evidence of hyperandrogenism that justifies testing for biochemical hyperandrogenism, Dr. Rosenfield said.

“All three sets of adolescent PCOS recommendations agree that investigation for biochemical hyperandrogenism be initiated by measuring serum total and/or free testosterone by specialty assays with well-defined reference ranges,” he said.

However, “documentation of biochemical hyperandrogenism has been problematic because standard platform assays of testosterone give grossly inaccurate results.”

As for the management of PCOS in teens, “different perspectives about pharmacologic treatment [reflect] the multicultural views about adolescent contraception,” said Dr. Rosenfield. Guidelines in the United States favor estrogen-progestin combined oral contraceptives as first-line therapy, while the international guidelines support contraceptives if contraception also is desired; otherwise the 2017 guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment.

“Agreement is uniform that healthy lifestyle management is first-line therapy for management of the associated obesity and metabolic disturbances, i.e., prior to and/or in conjunction with metformin therapy,” he noted.

In general, Dr. Rosenfield acknowledged that front-line clinicians cannot easily evaluate all early postmenarcheal girls for abnormal menstrual cycles. Instead, he advocated a “middle ground” approach between early diagnosis and potentially labeling a girl with a false positive diagnosis.

Postmenarcheal girls who are amenorrheic for 2 months could be assessed for signs of PCOS or pregnancy, and whether she is generally in good health, he said. “However, for example, if she remains amenorrheic for more than 90 days or if two successive periods are more than 2 months apart, laboratory screening would be reasonable.”

PCOS is “a diagnosis of exclusion for which referral to a specialist is advisable” to rule out other conditions such as non-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hyperprolactinemia, endogenous Cushing syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and virilizing tumors, said Dr. Rosenfield.

However, PCOS accounts for most cases of adolescent hyperandrogenism. The symptomatic treatment of early postmenarcheal girls at risk of PCOS is recommended to manage menstrual abnormality, hirsutism, acne, or obesity, and these girls should be reassessed by the time they finish high school after a 3-month treatment withdrawal period, he emphasized.

Dr. Rosenfield had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Rosenfield RL. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020 June 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.06.017.

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The conventional treatment mainstays for pemphigus are problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a shift in disease management strategy is in order, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.

First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.

“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).

The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.

“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).

Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).

Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.

She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Hemospray is highly effective for initial gastrointestinal hemostasis, but not long-term therapy, based on a recent meta-analysis.

Among 814 patients with GI bleeding who were treated with Hemospray, respective rates of clinical success and early rebleeding were 92% and 20%, reported lead author Andrew Ofosu, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, and colleagues.

“Since its introduction, multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of Hemospray for endoscopic hemostasis in a wide array of bleeding disorders in either the upper and/or lower GI tract,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

The present review and meta-analysis included 19 of those studies, including randomized controlled trials, case series, and case-control studies.

Of 814 adult patients, 212 were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, while 602 were treated with Hemospray combined with conventional hemostatic techniques.

“Unlike conventional endoscopic methods currently in use to achieve immediate hemostasis in GI bleeding, Hemospray is noncontact, nonthermal, and nontraumatic,” the investigators noted.

Clinical success, defined by endoscopically observed initial hemostasis, was achieved in 91% of patients who were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, a rate that did not significantly differ from the 93% success rate achieved by a combination approach.

Early rebleeding, defined by rebleeding within 7 days, was comparable between monotherapy (21%) and combination therapy (20%), a finding that was maintained in subgroup analysis. Similarly, no statistical difference was found between rates of rebleeding within 30 days, which were 22% and 24%, for monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively.

“Our study showed the rate of rebleeding increased with time after the application of Hemospray, likely due to the limited duration of action of the hemostatic powder at the site of bleeding,” wrote Dr. Ofosu and colleagues. “Second-look endoscopy performed in some studies has shown Hemospray is eliminated from the GI tract in as few as 24 hours after use, which potentially increases the risk of recurrent bleeding.”

The investigators suggested that Hemospray is best suited for short-term use because of the rebleeding risk.

“The use of Hemospray offers the potential to control bleeding initially and to optimize positioning or application of other modalities if needed in a more controlled setting,” concluded Dr. Ofosu and colleagues, who noted that this stance aligns with the views of other investigators.

Daljeet Chahal, MD and Fergal Donnellan, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, are two such investigators, having just published a retrospective cohort study that involved 86 applications of Hemospray. Their study, which was not included in the present meta-analysis because of recency of publication, revealed that “Hemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding.”

According to Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan, who provided a written comment, the findings of Dr. Ofosu and colleagues are comparable to their own, thereby supporting a similar conclusion.

“Hemospray appears more suited to emergent situations, where it should be used as a last resort; as a bridge therapy to more definitive measures such as embolization or surgery,” they wrote.

Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan also suggested that more work is needed to develop a comprehensive picture of Hemospray outcomes, which could guide usage.

“The meta-analysis does not comment specifically on rates of embolization or surgery after Hemospray use, or whether these rates differ by type of lesion,” they wrote. “These would be interesting measures to explore in future studies to more concretely define appropriate indications for Hemospray use.”

Bilal Toka, MD, of Sakarya University in Serdivan, Turkey, who has previously published research comparing conventional hemostatic techniques, also provided a written comment, in which he advised clinicians to be ready for a combination approach, particularly among high-risk patients.

“This meta-analysis shows that Hemospray is very useful in providing initial hemostasis in patients with GI bleeding,” Dr. Toka wrote. “[However], due to its high early and delayed rebleeding rates, additional mechanical or thermal endoscopic treatment should be applied in high-risk lesions such as actively bleeding peptic ulcers.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ofosu A et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 3. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001379.

Hemospray is highly effective for initial gastrointestinal hemostasis, but not long-term therapy, based on a recent meta-analysis.

Among 814 patients with GI bleeding who were treated with Hemospray, respective rates of clinical success and early rebleeding were 92% and 20%, reported lead author Andrew Ofosu, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, and colleagues.

“Since its introduction, multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of Hemospray for endoscopic hemostasis in a wide array of bleeding disorders in either the upper and/or lower GI tract,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

The present review and meta-analysis included 19 of those studies, including randomized controlled trials, case series, and case-control studies.

Of 814 adult patients, 212 were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, while 602 were treated with Hemospray combined with conventional hemostatic techniques.

“Unlike conventional endoscopic methods currently in use to achieve immediate hemostasis in GI bleeding, Hemospray is noncontact, nonthermal, and nontraumatic,” the investigators noted.

Clinical success, defined by endoscopically observed initial hemostasis, was achieved in 91% of patients who were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, a rate that did not significantly differ from the 93% success rate achieved by a combination approach.

Early rebleeding, defined by rebleeding within 7 days, was comparable between monotherapy (21%) and combination therapy (20%), a finding that was maintained in subgroup analysis. Similarly, no statistical difference was found between rates of rebleeding within 30 days, which were 22% and 24%, for monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively.

“Our study showed the rate of rebleeding increased with time after the application of Hemospray, likely due to the limited duration of action of the hemostatic powder at the site of bleeding,” wrote Dr. Ofosu and colleagues. “Second-look endoscopy performed in some studies has shown Hemospray is eliminated from the GI tract in as few as 24 hours after use, which potentially increases the risk of recurrent bleeding.”

The investigators suggested that Hemospray is best suited for short-term use because of the rebleeding risk.

“The use of Hemospray offers the potential to control bleeding initially and to optimize positioning or application of other modalities if needed in a more controlled setting,” concluded Dr. Ofosu and colleagues, who noted that this stance aligns with the views of other investigators.

Daljeet Chahal, MD and Fergal Donnellan, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, are two such investigators, having just published a retrospective cohort study that involved 86 applications of Hemospray. Their study, which was not included in the present meta-analysis because of recency of publication, revealed that “Hemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding.”

According to Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan, who provided a written comment, the findings of Dr. Ofosu and colleagues are comparable to their own, thereby supporting a similar conclusion.

“Hemospray appears more suited to emergent situations, where it should be used as a last resort; as a bridge therapy to more definitive measures such as embolization or surgery,” they wrote.

Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan also suggested that more work is needed to develop a comprehensive picture of Hemospray outcomes, which could guide usage.

“The meta-analysis does not comment specifically on rates of embolization or surgery after Hemospray use, or whether these rates differ by type of lesion,” they wrote. “These would be interesting measures to explore in future studies to more concretely define appropriate indications for Hemospray use.”

Bilal Toka, MD, of Sakarya University in Serdivan, Turkey, who has previously published research comparing conventional hemostatic techniques, also provided a written comment, in which he advised clinicians to be ready for a combination approach, particularly among high-risk patients.

“This meta-analysis shows that Hemospray is very useful in providing initial hemostasis in patients with GI bleeding,” Dr. Toka wrote. “[However], due to its high early and delayed rebleeding rates, additional mechanical or thermal endoscopic treatment should be applied in high-risk lesions such as actively bleeding peptic ulcers.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ofosu A et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 3. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001379.

Hemospray is highly effective for initial gastrointestinal hemostasis, but not long-term therapy, based on a recent meta-analysis.

Among 814 patients with GI bleeding who were treated with Hemospray, respective rates of clinical success and early rebleeding were 92% and 20%, reported lead author Andrew Ofosu, MD, of the Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, and colleagues.

“Since its introduction, multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of Hemospray for endoscopic hemostasis in a wide array of bleeding disorders in either the upper and/or lower GI tract,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

The present review and meta-analysis included 19 of those studies, including randomized controlled trials, case series, and case-control studies.

Of 814 adult patients, 212 were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, while 602 were treated with Hemospray combined with conventional hemostatic techniques.

“Unlike conventional endoscopic methods currently in use to achieve immediate hemostasis in GI bleeding, Hemospray is noncontact, nonthermal, and nontraumatic,” the investigators noted.

Clinical success, defined by endoscopically observed initial hemostasis, was achieved in 91% of patients who were treated with Hemospray as monotherapy, a rate that did not significantly differ from the 93% success rate achieved by a combination approach.

Early rebleeding, defined by rebleeding within 7 days, was comparable between monotherapy (21%) and combination therapy (20%), a finding that was maintained in subgroup analysis. Similarly, no statistical difference was found between rates of rebleeding within 30 days, which were 22% and 24%, for monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively.

“Our study showed the rate of rebleeding increased with time after the application of Hemospray, likely due to the limited duration of action of the hemostatic powder at the site of bleeding,” wrote Dr. Ofosu and colleagues. “Second-look endoscopy performed in some studies has shown Hemospray is eliminated from the GI tract in as few as 24 hours after use, which potentially increases the risk of recurrent bleeding.”

The investigators suggested that Hemospray is best suited for short-term use because of the rebleeding risk.

“The use of Hemospray offers the potential to control bleeding initially and to optimize positioning or application of other modalities if needed in a more controlled setting,” concluded Dr. Ofosu and colleagues, who noted that this stance aligns with the views of other investigators.

Daljeet Chahal, MD and Fergal Donnellan, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, are two such investigators, having just published a retrospective cohort study that involved 86 applications of Hemospray. Their study, which was not included in the present meta-analysis because of recency of publication, revealed that “Hemospray is effective in achieving immediate hemostasis but is plagued by high rates of rebleeding.”

According to Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan, who provided a written comment, the findings of Dr. Ofosu and colleagues are comparable to their own, thereby supporting a similar conclusion.

“Hemospray appears more suited to emergent situations, where it should be used as a last resort; as a bridge therapy to more definitive measures such as embolization or surgery,” they wrote.

Dr. Chahal and Dr. Donnellan also suggested that more work is needed to develop a comprehensive picture of Hemospray outcomes, which could guide usage.

“The meta-analysis does not comment specifically on rates of embolization or surgery after Hemospray use, or whether these rates differ by type of lesion,” they wrote. “These would be interesting measures to explore in future studies to more concretely define appropriate indications for Hemospray use.”

Bilal Toka, MD, of Sakarya University in Serdivan, Turkey, who has previously published research comparing conventional hemostatic techniques, also provided a written comment, in which he advised clinicians to be ready for a combination approach, particularly among high-risk patients.

“This meta-analysis shows that Hemospray is very useful in providing initial hemostasis in patients with GI bleeding,” Dr. Toka wrote. “[However], due to its high early and delayed rebleeding rates, additional mechanical or thermal endoscopic treatment should be applied in high-risk lesions such as actively bleeding peptic ulcers.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ofosu A et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 3. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001379.

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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