User login
New Guidelines: Brain Death Is Equal to Heart Death, Says Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Weighing the Big Decisions
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Long COVID: Another Great Pretender
Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”
If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
Another Great Pretender?
Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?
When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:
Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.
Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.
Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:
The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.
Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:
Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.
Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
Acute COVID to Long COVID
The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.
We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.
Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.
Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.
So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.
What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.
Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?
Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?
We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
Useful Progress?
A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.
Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.
In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.
I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”
I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”
If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
Another Great Pretender?
Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?
When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:
Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.
Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.
Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:
The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.
Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:
Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.
Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
Acute COVID to Long COVID
The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.
We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.
Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.
Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.
So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.
What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.
Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?
Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?
We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
Useful Progress?
A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.
Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.
In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.
I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”
I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Has COVID replaced syphilis as the great imitator? At the turn of the 20th century, Sir William Osler was quoted as saying, “He who knows syphilis knows medicine.”
If you have any doubts about the “imitator” analogy, simply use any broad search engine or AI portal and enter “what is the differential diagnosis of primary syphilis, or secondary syphilis, or tertiary syphilis?” A plethora of diseases across many body systems appears.
Another Great Pretender?
Did you or do you now have long COVID? How do you know? Do you even know what long COVID is? How would you diagnosis it?
When asked about long COVID, this is what large language model source bard.google.com had to say:
Long COVID, also known as post-COVID conditions or PASC, is a complex condition that can occur in people who have had COVID-19, even if their initial illness was mild or even asymptomatic. It’s characterized by a wide range of symptoms that can last for weeks, months, or even years after the initial infection.
Symptoms of long COVID can include: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog (trouble thinking or concentrating), loss of smell or taste, sleep problems, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, dizziness, depression or anxiety, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal problems.
Duh!!! It reads much like a continuation of the symptoms of acute COVID. Bard continued:
The exact cause of long COVID is still unknown, but there are several theories. One possibility is that the virus itself can damage organs and tissues, leading to ongoing symptoms. Another possibility is that the immune system’s response to the virus can continue to cause inflammation even after the virus is gone.
Human intelligence source Wikipedia says this:
Long COVID or long-haul COVID is a group of health problems persisting or developing after an initial COVID-19 infection. Symptoms can last weeks, months or years and are often debilitating. The World Health Organization defines long COVID as starting three months after infection, but other definitions put the start of long COVID at four weeks.
Highly varied, including post-exertional malaise (symptoms made worse with effort), fatigue, muscle pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, and cognitive dysfunction (brain fog).
Acute COVID to Long COVID
The World Health Organization estimates that 36 million people in the European region have developed long COVID in the first 3 years of the pandemic. That›s a lot.
We all know that the common signs and symptoms of acute COVID-19 include fever or chills, a dry cough and shortness of breath, feeling very tired, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Except for the taste and smell findings, every one of these symptoms or signs could indicate a different virus infection or even some type of allergy. My point is the nonspecificity in this list.
Uncommon signs and symptoms of acute COVID include a flat skin rash covered with small bumps, discolored swollen areas on the fingers and toes (COVID toes), and hives. The skin of hands, wrists, or ankles also can be affected. Blisters, itchiness, rough skin, or pus can be seen.
Severe confusion (delirium) might be the main or only symptom of COVID-19 in older people. This COVID-19 symptom is linked with a high risk for poor outcomes, including death. Pink eye (conjunctivitis) can be a COVID-19 symptom. Other eye problems linked to COVID-19 are light sensitivity, sore eyes, and itchy eyes. Acute myocarditis, tinnitus, vertigo, and hearing loss have been reported. And 1-4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 infection, a patient may experience de novo reactive synovitis and arthritis of any joints.
So, take your pick. Myriad symptoms, signs, diseases, diagnoses, and organ systems — still present, recurring, just appearing, apparently de novo, or after asymptomatic infection. We have so much still to learn.
What big-time symptoms, signs, and major diseases are not on any of these lists? Obviously, cancer, atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, obesity, bone diseases, and competitive infections. But be patient; the lingering effects of direct tissue invasion by the virus as well as a wide range of immunologic reactions may just be getting started. Mitochondrial damage, especially in muscles, is increasingly a pathophysiologic suspect.
Human diseases can be physical or mental; and in COVID, that twain not only meet but mix and mingle freely, and may even merge into psychosoma. Don’t ever forget that. Consider “fatigue.” Who among us, COVID or NOVID, does not experience that from time to time?
Or consider brain fog as a common reported symptom of COVID. What on earth is that actually? How can a person know they have brain fog, or whether they had it and are over it?
We need one or more lab or other diagnostic tests that can objectively confirm the diagnosis of long COVID.
Useful Progress?
A recent research paper in Science reported intriguing chemical findings that seemed to point a finger at some form of complement dysregulation as a potential disease marker for long COVID. Unfortunately, some critics have pointed out that this entire study may be invalid or irrelevant because the New York cohort was recruited in 2020, before vaccines were available. The Zurich cohort was recruited up until April 2021, so some may have been vaccinated.
Then this news organization came along in early January 2024 with an article about COVID causing not only more than a million American deaths but also more than 5000 deaths from long COVID. We physicians don’t really know what long COVID even is, but we have to sign death certificates blaming thousands of deaths on it anyway? And rolling back the clock to 2020: Are patients dying from COVID or with COVID, according to death certificates?Now, armed with the knowledge that “documented serious post–COVID-19 conditions include cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological, and gastrointestinal complications, as well as death,” CDC has published clear and fairly concise instructions on how to address post-acute COVID sequelae on death certificates.
In late January, this news organization painted a hopeful picture by naming four phenotypes of long COVID, suggesting that such divisions might further our understanding, including prognosis, and even therapy for this condition. Among the clinical phenotypes of (1) chronic fatigue–like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; (2) respiratory syndrome (which includes cough and difficulty breathing); (3) chronic pain; and (4) neurosensorial syndrome (which causes an altered sense of taste and smell), overlap is clearly possible but isn›t addressed.
I see these recent developments as needed and useful progress, but we are still left with…not much. So, when you tell me that you do or do not have long COVID, I will say to you, “How do you know?”
I also say: She/he/they who know COVID know medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biosimilars Have Driven Down Cost of Infliximab
LAS VEGAS — , according to two new retrospective analyses that separately looked at private insurance and Medicare patients.
“It is interesting to see that biosimilar use is increasing in patients with Medicare insurance in the U.S. since introduction into the market. This shows that clinicians are getting more comfortable with their use in clinical practice,” said Sara Horst, MD, associate professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. That “is a continued important question in use, especially in the older population,” Dr. Horst said at the poster session where the two studies were presented, at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
One study examined Medicare part D participants. The researchers included infliximab prescriptions between 2013 and 2021, with a break in 2017 when biosimilars were first introduced. Between 2013 and 2017, there was a 93.7% annual increase in infliximab cost, and a 29.0% increase in annual claims. Between 2017 and 2021, those numbers declined to 23.9% and 12.1%, respectively. The researchers also examined trends by individual states and found a wide range of results. “Nationwide, it seems to be doing exactly what you’d expect, and I’d say it’s encouraging. This is exactly what you want with the introduction of biosimilars, and this is what you want for the patient population. But there are some states that have not really kept up with the rest of the country, and may need to look further into what types of trends are there,” said Modan Goldman, who presented the study. He is a medical student at Carle Illinois College of Medicine in Urbana, Illinois.
The other study looked at use of infliximab versus a biosimilar between 2015 and 2021 in 42,009 patients 64 or younger, drawing data from Merative Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. They excluded government-funded insurance. Between January 2015 and December 2017, the cost of a vial of infliximab increased by $6.31 per month, reaching a maxim cost of $1,491 per vial. In January 2018, the cost decreased by $62 per vial, with a downward trend after that of $12.93 per vial per month.
“[Getting] access to these drugs, especially for pediatric IBD, has been an uphill battle with insurance companies and getting the medication and the doses we want,” said Samantha Paglinco, DO, who presented the Marketscan study.
The findings demonstrated clear cost reductions. “At the beginning of our period, infliximab originator Remicade was a little over $1,200 per vial, and at the end of our period of 2021, we expected it to be around $1,800 per vial. However, with the introduction of multiple infliximab biosimilars, we did see it come down to $800 per vial, which generated a savings of $1,000, which is pretty significant. We’re hoping that by generating overall cost savings to insurance companies, this will allow for greater access, because we know infliximab is such a good medication for pediatric IBD and for many other autoimmune conditions,” said Dr. Paglinco, a pediatric GI fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
The decrease in the cost of medication per vial in both the originator and biosimilar is an important finding in light of cost containment strategies, although Dr. Horst pointed out that the study didn’t determine if there were any savings to patients. “That is what clinicians and patients care about the most. I worry that while these savings were seen at insurance and health care organizational levels, patients may not have experienced any cost savings, and this is something we need to consider in the future,” she said.
The FDA created the biosimilar regulatory pathway in 2010 in an effort to reduce costs. “And they have. The cost savings however, has not directly translated to the individual patient in their copays or necessarily in changes to access when prescribing. Nor has it allowed dose escalation more easily, which is frequently needed,” said David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, who was asked for comment.
Although the changes in prescribing patterns may reflect cost savings to patients, there are some limits to this interpretation, according to Dr. Rubin, of the University of Chicago. Payers are often the ones who determine a switch to biosimilar. The study also does not account for disease activity or phenotype, which can be an important confounder. Newer biologics that have come on to the market in recent years may also have affected the prescribing patterns for infliximab.
Nevertheless, an association between introduction of biosimilars and declining cost in the originator product (Remicade) is welcome, according to Dr. Rubin. “This is nice to see and we have seen it in our practices,” he said.
Unfortunately, “it has also not been seen to translate into reduced costs for patients nor has it been associated with increased access or changes in payer policies to allow these drugs to be used, or dose escalations to occur,” Dr. Rubin added.
Dr. Paglinco and Mr. Goldman have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Horst has consulted for Janssen, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie. Dr. Rubin has received grant support from Takeda and has consulted for Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda.
LAS VEGAS — , according to two new retrospective analyses that separately looked at private insurance and Medicare patients.
“It is interesting to see that biosimilar use is increasing in patients with Medicare insurance in the U.S. since introduction into the market. This shows that clinicians are getting more comfortable with their use in clinical practice,” said Sara Horst, MD, associate professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. That “is a continued important question in use, especially in the older population,” Dr. Horst said at the poster session where the two studies were presented, at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
One study examined Medicare part D participants. The researchers included infliximab prescriptions between 2013 and 2021, with a break in 2017 when biosimilars were first introduced. Between 2013 and 2017, there was a 93.7% annual increase in infliximab cost, and a 29.0% increase in annual claims. Between 2017 and 2021, those numbers declined to 23.9% and 12.1%, respectively. The researchers also examined trends by individual states and found a wide range of results. “Nationwide, it seems to be doing exactly what you’d expect, and I’d say it’s encouraging. This is exactly what you want with the introduction of biosimilars, and this is what you want for the patient population. But there are some states that have not really kept up with the rest of the country, and may need to look further into what types of trends are there,” said Modan Goldman, who presented the study. He is a medical student at Carle Illinois College of Medicine in Urbana, Illinois.
The other study looked at use of infliximab versus a biosimilar between 2015 and 2021 in 42,009 patients 64 or younger, drawing data from Merative Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. They excluded government-funded insurance. Between January 2015 and December 2017, the cost of a vial of infliximab increased by $6.31 per month, reaching a maxim cost of $1,491 per vial. In January 2018, the cost decreased by $62 per vial, with a downward trend after that of $12.93 per vial per month.
“[Getting] access to these drugs, especially for pediatric IBD, has been an uphill battle with insurance companies and getting the medication and the doses we want,” said Samantha Paglinco, DO, who presented the Marketscan study.
The findings demonstrated clear cost reductions. “At the beginning of our period, infliximab originator Remicade was a little over $1,200 per vial, and at the end of our period of 2021, we expected it to be around $1,800 per vial. However, with the introduction of multiple infliximab biosimilars, we did see it come down to $800 per vial, which generated a savings of $1,000, which is pretty significant. We’re hoping that by generating overall cost savings to insurance companies, this will allow for greater access, because we know infliximab is such a good medication for pediatric IBD and for many other autoimmune conditions,” said Dr. Paglinco, a pediatric GI fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
The decrease in the cost of medication per vial in both the originator and biosimilar is an important finding in light of cost containment strategies, although Dr. Horst pointed out that the study didn’t determine if there were any savings to patients. “That is what clinicians and patients care about the most. I worry that while these savings were seen at insurance and health care organizational levels, patients may not have experienced any cost savings, and this is something we need to consider in the future,” she said.
The FDA created the biosimilar regulatory pathway in 2010 in an effort to reduce costs. “And they have. The cost savings however, has not directly translated to the individual patient in their copays or necessarily in changes to access when prescribing. Nor has it allowed dose escalation more easily, which is frequently needed,” said David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, who was asked for comment.
Although the changes in prescribing patterns may reflect cost savings to patients, there are some limits to this interpretation, according to Dr. Rubin, of the University of Chicago. Payers are often the ones who determine a switch to biosimilar. The study also does not account for disease activity or phenotype, which can be an important confounder. Newer biologics that have come on to the market in recent years may also have affected the prescribing patterns for infliximab.
Nevertheless, an association between introduction of biosimilars and declining cost in the originator product (Remicade) is welcome, according to Dr. Rubin. “This is nice to see and we have seen it in our practices,” he said.
Unfortunately, “it has also not been seen to translate into reduced costs for patients nor has it been associated with increased access or changes in payer policies to allow these drugs to be used, or dose escalations to occur,” Dr. Rubin added.
Dr. Paglinco and Mr. Goldman have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Horst has consulted for Janssen, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie. Dr. Rubin has received grant support from Takeda and has consulted for Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda.
LAS VEGAS — , according to two new retrospective analyses that separately looked at private insurance and Medicare patients.
“It is interesting to see that biosimilar use is increasing in patients with Medicare insurance in the U.S. since introduction into the market. This shows that clinicians are getting more comfortable with their use in clinical practice,” said Sara Horst, MD, associate professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. That “is a continued important question in use, especially in the older population,” Dr. Horst said at the poster session where the two studies were presented, at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
One study examined Medicare part D participants. The researchers included infliximab prescriptions between 2013 and 2021, with a break in 2017 when biosimilars were first introduced. Between 2013 and 2017, there was a 93.7% annual increase in infliximab cost, and a 29.0% increase in annual claims. Between 2017 and 2021, those numbers declined to 23.9% and 12.1%, respectively. The researchers also examined trends by individual states and found a wide range of results. “Nationwide, it seems to be doing exactly what you’d expect, and I’d say it’s encouraging. This is exactly what you want with the introduction of biosimilars, and this is what you want for the patient population. But there are some states that have not really kept up with the rest of the country, and may need to look further into what types of trends are there,” said Modan Goldman, who presented the study. He is a medical student at Carle Illinois College of Medicine in Urbana, Illinois.
The other study looked at use of infliximab versus a biosimilar between 2015 and 2021 in 42,009 patients 64 or younger, drawing data from Merative Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. They excluded government-funded insurance. Between January 2015 and December 2017, the cost of a vial of infliximab increased by $6.31 per month, reaching a maxim cost of $1,491 per vial. In January 2018, the cost decreased by $62 per vial, with a downward trend after that of $12.93 per vial per month.
“[Getting] access to these drugs, especially for pediatric IBD, has been an uphill battle with insurance companies and getting the medication and the doses we want,” said Samantha Paglinco, DO, who presented the Marketscan study.
The findings demonstrated clear cost reductions. “At the beginning of our period, infliximab originator Remicade was a little over $1,200 per vial, and at the end of our period of 2021, we expected it to be around $1,800 per vial. However, with the introduction of multiple infliximab biosimilars, we did see it come down to $800 per vial, which generated a savings of $1,000, which is pretty significant. We’re hoping that by generating overall cost savings to insurance companies, this will allow for greater access, because we know infliximab is such a good medication for pediatric IBD and for many other autoimmune conditions,” said Dr. Paglinco, a pediatric GI fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
The decrease in the cost of medication per vial in both the originator and biosimilar is an important finding in light of cost containment strategies, although Dr. Horst pointed out that the study didn’t determine if there were any savings to patients. “That is what clinicians and patients care about the most. I worry that while these savings were seen at insurance and health care organizational levels, patients may not have experienced any cost savings, and this is something we need to consider in the future,” she said.
The FDA created the biosimilar regulatory pathway in 2010 in an effort to reduce costs. “And they have. The cost savings however, has not directly translated to the individual patient in their copays or necessarily in changes to access when prescribing. Nor has it allowed dose escalation more easily, which is frequently needed,” said David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, who was asked for comment.
Although the changes in prescribing patterns may reflect cost savings to patients, there are some limits to this interpretation, according to Dr. Rubin, of the University of Chicago. Payers are often the ones who determine a switch to biosimilar. The study also does not account for disease activity or phenotype, which can be an important confounder. Newer biologics that have come on to the market in recent years may also have affected the prescribing patterns for infliximab.
Nevertheless, an association between introduction of biosimilars and declining cost in the originator product (Remicade) is welcome, according to Dr. Rubin. “This is nice to see and we have seen it in our practices,” he said.
Unfortunately, “it has also not been seen to translate into reduced costs for patients nor has it been associated with increased access or changes in payer policies to allow these drugs to be used, or dose escalations to occur,” Dr. Rubin added.
Dr. Paglinco and Mr. Goldman have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Horst has consulted for Janssen, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbvie. Dr. Rubin has received grant support from Takeda and has consulted for Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda.
FROM CROHN’S AND COLITIS CONGRESS
How to Prescribe Physical Activity in Patients With Obesity
Exercise should no longer be a mere “complement” or a standard recommendation within healthy lifestyle guidelines, say experts. Recent evidence confirms its physiological importance and endorses its beneficial and therapeutic effects on overall health, particularly in the case of obesity and its comorbidities. These findings emphasized the reasons to include exercise prescription in addressing this condition. This conclusion emerged from discussions among experts in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences during the XIX Congress of the Spanish Society for Obesity, where the role of physical exercise as a therapeutic strategy was analyzed from various perspectives.
Javier Butragueño, PhD, coordinator of the Exercise Working Group at the Spanish Society of Obesity, emphasized the need to “reposition” the role of exercise and the message conveyed to the population. “We must move beyond the typical recommendation to ‘just walk’ and rethink this message. When working with patients with obesity, you realize that, for example, the guideline of 10,000 steps per day makes little sense for those who weigh 140 kg, have been sedentary for a long time, and have not reached 2000 daily steps. Clinically, it becomes evident that current recommendations may not align with the needs of these patients,” he said.
Precision Focus
Dr. Butragueño highlighted the necessity of shifting the central focus from weight-related variables alone. While weight is crucial, evidence suggests that it should be evaluated along with other strategies, such as nutrition and pharmacology.
“The approach must change to view exercise as a metabolism regulator,” said Dr. Butragueño. “For specialists, this means educating the population about the need to stay active for overall health. This is a disruptive message because the prevailing idea, almost obsessive, associates exercise primarily with weight loss, a completely incorrect approach that can even be detrimental in some cases.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized the supportive role of physical exercise in interventions for these patients. “Data show that it is both an enhancer and a co-adjuvant in strategies that also include psychology and endocrinology. It should be part of the approach to obesity but individualized and phenotyped to give physical activity the necessary dimension in each specific case.”
As an example of this adaptability in therapeutic strategy, Dr. Butragueño referred to addressing binge eating disorder. “In this case, specialists must acknowledge that sports are a third-line option, always behind the psychologist, who plays a primary role. Exercise is used to enhance the emotions triggered through its practice, considering that many of these patients maintain a very negative relationship with their bodies.”
Spanish ‘Prescription Guide’
During his presentation, Dr. Butragueño introduced the positioning document from the Exercise Group of the Spanish Society of Obesity, which is aimed at designing physical activity programs for patients with obesity. He emphasized its importance as a much-needed effort at proposing intervention strategies to guide health professionals and establish a reference framework for collaboration across different approaches to obesity.
Among the noteworthy aspects of the guidelines outlined in this document, Dr. Butragueño highlighted the assessment and classification of physical activity into four levels based on each patient’s physical condition. “This aspect should be studied by the scientific community because ‘humanizing’ exercise prescription by understanding individuals’ needs beyond their BMI is crucial.”
He also discussed the strategy outlined in the document that he said is crucial for implementing an exercise program. “Essentially, it involves two guidelines: First, engage in physical activity for at least 30-60 minutes in what we call zone 2. This includes activities like walking, cycling, or rowing, where one can speak easily with another person or sing without getting out of breath. This is a fundamental part of addressing obesity, as it improves mitochondrial biogenesis, the correct utilization of fatty acids, which is a significant concern in the pathophysiology of obesity and other diseases like cancer.”
The second strategy involves strength training alone or combined with aerobic-cardiovascular exercise. “Studies show that just 20 minutes of strength training 1 day a week for 10 consecutive weeks significantly improves strength levels in sedentary individuals.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized that to date, there is no doubt that the most effective approach is to combine strength exercises with cardiorespiratory exercises. “This is not only to address obesity but also because, beyond weight impact, this training has proven additional benefits, such as increased oxygenation and improved cognitive capacity.”
Finally, regarding the challenges this shift in focus poses for exercise specialists, Dr. Butragueño pointed out, “Synergies in obesity treatment require sports experts to receive training in other disciplines, elevating our knowledge level and communication with the medical community to emphasize that we are indeed talking about exercise physiology applied to a condition like obesity.”
“In addition, as scientists, we must challenge ourselves to disseminate information at the societal level, surpassing the typical and outdated message of ‘eat less and move more,’ which we know is incorrect. This simplistic formula doesn’t help many patients resolve their issues like fatty liver, diabetes, and other metabolic disorders,” he concluded.
Active Breaks
Other topics debated during the congress included the importance of making exercise prescription a de facto reality in clinical practice and the challenge of achieving therapeutic compliance.
According to experts, one of the well-positioned trends in this regard is the concept of “active breaks” or “exercise snacks.” These breaks involve engaging in short-duration, moderate- to high-intensity activities throughout the day or working hours.
César Bustos, a board member of the Spanish Society of Obesity, mentioned that several studies have demonstrated that simple activities like climbing three flights of stairs or engaging in 1-minute training sessions can increase the metabolic equivalent of cardiovascular capacity and cardiorespiratory fitness. This approach could help reduce cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality by 13%-15%.
“Cardiorespiratory fitness is the ability to engage in physical activity. It has been proven to be a more powerful predictor of mortality risk than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, obesity, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes,” said Mr. Bustos.
The expert added that these findings on the benefits of exercise snacks are particularly relevant in the current context, where lack of time is the primary obstacle cited by individuals with obesity for not engaging in regular physical activity. In addition, exercise prescription is considered the primary preventive measure for obesity and its associated diseases.
“Exercise is an essential complement to various treatments and strategies aimed at managing obesity and maintaining long-term weight reductions. However, patient compliance with recommended measures to stay active remains low. This deficiency can be overcome with the adoption of exercise snacks or small doses of exercise, which have become the most effective tool for achieving this goal,” he emphasized.
Also, in line with other experts, Mr. Bustos emphasized the importance of combined strength and cardiovascular training within the same session. “Undoubtedly, this is the most effective modality, as recent meta-analyses reflect. There is also a second effective modality for improving cardiometabolic parameters in patients with obesity: Hybrid training, including games, skipping ropes, and various devices.”
Exerkines and Poly Pills
Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, a specialist in physical activity and sports at Navarrabiomed, University Hospital of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, provided an update on the latest evidence regarding exerkines, which are molecules released during exercise. Research into these molecules attempts to analyze and understand the complex network of interactions between various exercise response systems.
Dr. García-Hermoso said that in the case of obesity and type 2 diabetes, research focuses on how exercise can affect patients’ exerkine levels and how these molecules can affect cardiometabolic control.
“The results demonstrate that these molecules are associated with multiple benefits, including improved insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis,” said Dr. García-Hermoso. “Concerning obesity, regular exercise has been shown to reduce interleukin-6 levels, positively affecting inflammation in these patients, also being associated with increased lipolysis and fatty acid utilization.”
Dr. García-Hermoso considered that studying exerkines supports the importance of individualized exercise prescription, like prescription of diet or medications.
He emphasized the importance of intensity, “which is even more crucial than the type of physical activity. Intense exercise activates physiological mechanisms, such as increased blood lactate levels, favoring the inhibition of ghrelin signaling associated with appetite. Therefore, higher exercise intensity leads to more lactate and greater inhibition of post-training hunger.”
“It is essential to understand that exercise is a poly pill with many advantages, and one of them is that even in small amounts, if intensity is increased, health benefits increase considerably,” Dr. García-Hermoso concluded.
Dr. Butragueño, Mr. Bustos, and Dr. García-Hermoso declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Exercise should no longer be a mere “complement” or a standard recommendation within healthy lifestyle guidelines, say experts. Recent evidence confirms its physiological importance and endorses its beneficial and therapeutic effects on overall health, particularly in the case of obesity and its comorbidities. These findings emphasized the reasons to include exercise prescription in addressing this condition. This conclusion emerged from discussions among experts in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences during the XIX Congress of the Spanish Society for Obesity, where the role of physical exercise as a therapeutic strategy was analyzed from various perspectives.
Javier Butragueño, PhD, coordinator of the Exercise Working Group at the Spanish Society of Obesity, emphasized the need to “reposition” the role of exercise and the message conveyed to the population. “We must move beyond the typical recommendation to ‘just walk’ and rethink this message. When working with patients with obesity, you realize that, for example, the guideline of 10,000 steps per day makes little sense for those who weigh 140 kg, have been sedentary for a long time, and have not reached 2000 daily steps. Clinically, it becomes evident that current recommendations may not align with the needs of these patients,” he said.
Precision Focus
Dr. Butragueño highlighted the necessity of shifting the central focus from weight-related variables alone. While weight is crucial, evidence suggests that it should be evaluated along with other strategies, such as nutrition and pharmacology.
“The approach must change to view exercise as a metabolism regulator,” said Dr. Butragueño. “For specialists, this means educating the population about the need to stay active for overall health. This is a disruptive message because the prevailing idea, almost obsessive, associates exercise primarily with weight loss, a completely incorrect approach that can even be detrimental in some cases.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized the supportive role of physical exercise in interventions for these patients. “Data show that it is both an enhancer and a co-adjuvant in strategies that also include psychology and endocrinology. It should be part of the approach to obesity but individualized and phenotyped to give physical activity the necessary dimension in each specific case.”
As an example of this adaptability in therapeutic strategy, Dr. Butragueño referred to addressing binge eating disorder. “In this case, specialists must acknowledge that sports are a third-line option, always behind the psychologist, who plays a primary role. Exercise is used to enhance the emotions triggered through its practice, considering that many of these patients maintain a very negative relationship with their bodies.”
Spanish ‘Prescription Guide’
During his presentation, Dr. Butragueño introduced the positioning document from the Exercise Group of the Spanish Society of Obesity, which is aimed at designing physical activity programs for patients with obesity. He emphasized its importance as a much-needed effort at proposing intervention strategies to guide health professionals and establish a reference framework for collaboration across different approaches to obesity.
Among the noteworthy aspects of the guidelines outlined in this document, Dr. Butragueño highlighted the assessment and classification of physical activity into four levels based on each patient’s physical condition. “This aspect should be studied by the scientific community because ‘humanizing’ exercise prescription by understanding individuals’ needs beyond their BMI is crucial.”
He also discussed the strategy outlined in the document that he said is crucial for implementing an exercise program. “Essentially, it involves two guidelines: First, engage in physical activity for at least 30-60 minutes in what we call zone 2. This includes activities like walking, cycling, or rowing, where one can speak easily with another person or sing without getting out of breath. This is a fundamental part of addressing obesity, as it improves mitochondrial biogenesis, the correct utilization of fatty acids, which is a significant concern in the pathophysiology of obesity and other diseases like cancer.”
The second strategy involves strength training alone or combined with aerobic-cardiovascular exercise. “Studies show that just 20 minutes of strength training 1 day a week for 10 consecutive weeks significantly improves strength levels in sedentary individuals.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized that to date, there is no doubt that the most effective approach is to combine strength exercises with cardiorespiratory exercises. “This is not only to address obesity but also because, beyond weight impact, this training has proven additional benefits, such as increased oxygenation and improved cognitive capacity.”
Finally, regarding the challenges this shift in focus poses for exercise specialists, Dr. Butragueño pointed out, “Synergies in obesity treatment require sports experts to receive training in other disciplines, elevating our knowledge level and communication with the medical community to emphasize that we are indeed talking about exercise physiology applied to a condition like obesity.”
“In addition, as scientists, we must challenge ourselves to disseminate information at the societal level, surpassing the typical and outdated message of ‘eat less and move more,’ which we know is incorrect. This simplistic formula doesn’t help many patients resolve their issues like fatty liver, diabetes, and other metabolic disorders,” he concluded.
Active Breaks
Other topics debated during the congress included the importance of making exercise prescription a de facto reality in clinical practice and the challenge of achieving therapeutic compliance.
According to experts, one of the well-positioned trends in this regard is the concept of “active breaks” or “exercise snacks.” These breaks involve engaging in short-duration, moderate- to high-intensity activities throughout the day or working hours.
César Bustos, a board member of the Spanish Society of Obesity, mentioned that several studies have demonstrated that simple activities like climbing three flights of stairs or engaging in 1-minute training sessions can increase the metabolic equivalent of cardiovascular capacity and cardiorespiratory fitness. This approach could help reduce cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality by 13%-15%.
“Cardiorespiratory fitness is the ability to engage in physical activity. It has been proven to be a more powerful predictor of mortality risk than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, obesity, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes,” said Mr. Bustos.
The expert added that these findings on the benefits of exercise snacks are particularly relevant in the current context, where lack of time is the primary obstacle cited by individuals with obesity for not engaging in regular physical activity. In addition, exercise prescription is considered the primary preventive measure for obesity and its associated diseases.
“Exercise is an essential complement to various treatments and strategies aimed at managing obesity and maintaining long-term weight reductions. However, patient compliance with recommended measures to stay active remains low. This deficiency can be overcome with the adoption of exercise snacks or small doses of exercise, which have become the most effective tool for achieving this goal,” he emphasized.
Also, in line with other experts, Mr. Bustos emphasized the importance of combined strength and cardiovascular training within the same session. “Undoubtedly, this is the most effective modality, as recent meta-analyses reflect. There is also a second effective modality for improving cardiometabolic parameters in patients with obesity: Hybrid training, including games, skipping ropes, and various devices.”
Exerkines and Poly Pills
Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, a specialist in physical activity and sports at Navarrabiomed, University Hospital of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, provided an update on the latest evidence regarding exerkines, which are molecules released during exercise. Research into these molecules attempts to analyze and understand the complex network of interactions between various exercise response systems.
Dr. García-Hermoso said that in the case of obesity and type 2 diabetes, research focuses on how exercise can affect patients’ exerkine levels and how these molecules can affect cardiometabolic control.
“The results demonstrate that these molecules are associated with multiple benefits, including improved insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis,” said Dr. García-Hermoso. “Concerning obesity, regular exercise has been shown to reduce interleukin-6 levels, positively affecting inflammation in these patients, also being associated with increased lipolysis and fatty acid utilization.”
Dr. García-Hermoso considered that studying exerkines supports the importance of individualized exercise prescription, like prescription of diet or medications.
He emphasized the importance of intensity, “which is even more crucial than the type of physical activity. Intense exercise activates physiological mechanisms, such as increased blood lactate levels, favoring the inhibition of ghrelin signaling associated with appetite. Therefore, higher exercise intensity leads to more lactate and greater inhibition of post-training hunger.”
“It is essential to understand that exercise is a poly pill with many advantages, and one of them is that even in small amounts, if intensity is increased, health benefits increase considerably,” Dr. García-Hermoso concluded.
Dr. Butragueño, Mr. Bustos, and Dr. García-Hermoso declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Exercise should no longer be a mere “complement” or a standard recommendation within healthy lifestyle guidelines, say experts. Recent evidence confirms its physiological importance and endorses its beneficial and therapeutic effects on overall health, particularly in the case of obesity and its comorbidities. These findings emphasized the reasons to include exercise prescription in addressing this condition. This conclusion emerged from discussions among experts in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences during the XIX Congress of the Spanish Society for Obesity, where the role of physical exercise as a therapeutic strategy was analyzed from various perspectives.
Javier Butragueño, PhD, coordinator of the Exercise Working Group at the Spanish Society of Obesity, emphasized the need to “reposition” the role of exercise and the message conveyed to the population. “We must move beyond the typical recommendation to ‘just walk’ and rethink this message. When working with patients with obesity, you realize that, for example, the guideline of 10,000 steps per day makes little sense for those who weigh 140 kg, have been sedentary for a long time, and have not reached 2000 daily steps. Clinically, it becomes evident that current recommendations may not align with the needs of these patients,” he said.
Precision Focus
Dr. Butragueño highlighted the necessity of shifting the central focus from weight-related variables alone. While weight is crucial, evidence suggests that it should be evaluated along with other strategies, such as nutrition and pharmacology.
“The approach must change to view exercise as a metabolism regulator,” said Dr. Butragueño. “For specialists, this means educating the population about the need to stay active for overall health. This is a disruptive message because the prevailing idea, almost obsessive, associates exercise primarily with weight loss, a completely incorrect approach that can even be detrimental in some cases.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized the supportive role of physical exercise in interventions for these patients. “Data show that it is both an enhancer and a co-adjuvant in strategies that also include psychology and endocrinology. It should be part of the approach to obesity but individualized and phenotyped to give physical activity the necessary dimension in each specific case.”
As an example of this adaptability in therapeutic strategy, Dr. Butragueño referred to addressing binge eating disorder. “In this case, specialists must acknowledge that sports are a third-line option, always behind the psychologist, who plays a primary role. Exercise is used to enhance the emotions triggered through its practice, considering that many of these patients maintain a very negative relationship with their bodies.”
Spanish ‘Prescription Guide’
During his presentation, Dr. Butragueño introduced the positioning document from the Exercise Group of the Spanish Society of Obesity, which is aimed at designing physical activity programs for patients with obesity. He emphasized its importance as a much-needed effort at proposing intervention strategies to guide health professionals and establish a reference framework for collaboration across different approaches to obesity.
Among the noteworthy aspects of the guidelines outlined in this document, Dr. Butragueño highlighted the assessment and classification of physical activity into four levels based on each patient’s physical condition. “This aspect should be studied by the scientific community because ‘humanizing’ exercise prescription by understanding individuals’ needs beyond their BMI is crucial.”
He also discussed the strategy outlined in the document that he said is crucial for implementing an exercise program. “Essentially, it involves two guidelines: First, engage in physical activity for at least 30-60 minutes in what we call zone 2. This includes activities like walking, cycling, or rowing, where one can speak easily with another person or sing without getting out of breath. This is a fundamental part of addressing obesity, as it improves mitochondrial biogenesis, the correct utilization of fatty acids, which is a significant concern in the pathophysiology of obesity and other diseases like cancer.”
The second strategy involves strength training alone or combined with aerobic-cardiovascular exercise. “Studies show that just 20 minutes of strength training 1 day a week for 10 consecutive weeks significantly improves strength levels in sedentary individuals.”
Dr. Butragueño emphasized that to date, there is no doubt that the most effective approach is to combine strength exercises with cardiorespiratory exercises. “This is not only to address obesity but also because, beyond weight impact, this training has proven additional benefits, such as increased oxygenation and improved cognitive capacity.”
Finally, regarding the challenges this shift in focus poses for exercise specialists, Dr. Butragueño pointed out, “Synergies in obesity treatment require sports experts to receive training in other disciplines, elevating our knowledge level and communication with the medical community to emphasize that we are indeed talking about exercise physiology applied to a condition like obesity.”
“In addition, as scientists, we must challenge ourselves to disseminate information at the societal level, surpassing the typical and outdated message of ‘eat less and move more,’ which we know is incorrect. This simplistic formula doesn’t help many patients resolve their issues like fatty liver, diabetes, and other metabolic disorders,” he concluded.
Active Breaks
Other topics debated during the congress included the importance of making exercise prescription a de facto reality in clinical practice and the challenge of achieving therapeutic compliance.
According to experts, one of the well-positioned trends in this regard is the concept of “active breaks” or “exercise snacks.” These breaks involve engaging in short-duration, moderate- to high-intensity activities throughout the day or working hours.
César Bustos, a board member of the Spanish Society of Obesity, mentioned that several studies have demonstrated that simple activities like climbing three flights of stairs or engaging in 1-minute training sessions can increase the metabolic equivalent of cardiovascular capacity and cardiorespiratory fitness. This approach could help reduce cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality by 13%-15%.
“Cardiorespiratory fitness is the ability to engage in physical activity. It has been proven to be a more powerful predictor of mortality risk than traditional risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, obesity, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes,” said Mr. Bustos.
The expert added that these findings on the benefits of exercise snacks are particularly relevant in the current context, where lack of time is the primary obstacle cited by individuals with obesity for not engaging in regular physical activity. In addition, exercise prescription is considered the primary preventive measure for obesity and its associated diseases.
“Exercise is an essential complement to various treatments and strategies aimed at managing obesity and maintaining long-term weight reductions. However, patient compliance with recommended measures to stay active remains low. This deficiency can be overcome with the adoption of exercise snacks or small doses of exercise, which have become the most effective tool for achieving this goal,” he emphasized.
Also, in line with other experts, Mr. Bustos emphasized the importance of combined strength and cardiovascular training within the same session. “Undoubtedly, this is the most effective modality, as recent meta-analyses reflect. There is also a second effective modality for improving cardiometabolic parameters in patients with obesity: Hybrid training, including games, skipping ropes, and various devices.”
Exerkines and Poly Pills
Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, a specialist in physical activity and sports at Navarrabiomed, University Hospital of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, provided an update on the latest evidence regarding exerkines, which are molecules released during exercise. Research into these molecules attempts to analyze and understand the complex network of interactions between various exercise response systems.
Dr. García-Hermoso said that in the case of obesity and type 2 diabetes, research focuses on how exercise can affect patients’ exerkine levels and how these molecules can affect cardiometabolic control.
“The results demonstrate that these molecules are associated with multiple benefits, including improved insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis,” said Dr. García-Hermoso. “Concerning obesity, regular exercise has been shown to reduce interleukin-6 levels, positively affecting inflammation in these patients, also being associated with increased lipolysis and fatty acid utilization.”
Dr. García-Hermoso considered that studying exerkines supports the importance of individualized exercise prescription, like prescription of diet or medications.
He emphasized the importance of intensity, “which is even more crucial than the type of physical activity. Intense exercise activates physiological mechanisms, such as increased blood lactate levels, favoring the inhibition of ghrelin signaling associated with appetite. Therefore, higher exercise intensity leads to more lactate and greater inhibition of post-training hunger.”
“It is essential to understand that exercise is a poly pill with many advantages, and one of them is that even in small amounts, if intensity is increased, health benefits increase considerably,” Dr. García-Hermoso concluded.
Dr. Butragueño, Mr. Bustos, and Dr. García-Hermoso declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest.
This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral IL-23 Inhibitor Calms Moderate to Severe Psoriasis
A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.
Among 255 at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.
“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
Targets IL-23 and IL-17
The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.
“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.
Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.
The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)
‘Profoundly Effective’
The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.
“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.
“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.
“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.
He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.
“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.
In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
FRONTIER-1 Details
The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.
Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks.
There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).
As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.
After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.
The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.
As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113.
There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.
The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.
Among 255 at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.
“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
Targets IL-23 and IL-17
The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.
“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.
Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.
The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)
‘Profoundly Effective’
The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.
“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.
“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.
“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.
He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.
“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.
In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
FRONTIER-1 Details
The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.
Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks.
There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).
As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.
After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.
The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.
As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113.
There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.
The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel oral drug for plaque psoriasis that targets the same inflammatory pathway as currently available parenteral therapies showed promise for treating moderate to severe disease in a phase 2 dose-finding trial.
Among 255 at week 16 of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with 9% of patients assigned to placebo, reported Robert Bissonnette, MD, from Innovaderm Research in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues.
“The level of reduction of psoriasis that was observed with higher doses of JNJ-77242113 at week 16 was similar in magnitude to the responses seen with several of the injectable biologics that are currently approved for psoriasis,” investigators in the FRONTIER 1 trial wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The investigators noted that among patients assigned to the 100-mg dose of the active drug, 60% had a PASI 90 response, which compares favorably with that seen in phase 3 trials of two other orally available therapies for psoriasis, deucravacitinib (Sotyktu) and apremilast (Otezla). They cautioned, however, against drawing any further inferences from these data, because these agents have not been tested head-to-head against JNJ-77242113 in comparison trials.
Targets IL-23 and IL-17
The investigational agent is an oral IL-23 receptor antagonist peptide that selectively blocks IL-23 proximal signaling as well as the production of downstream inflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, according to the authors.
“Modulation of the interleukin-23 pathway with the use of monoclonal antibodies has shown efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis and is considered to be associated with a more favorable safety profile than older oral therapies (eg, cyclosporine, acitretin, methotrexate, and dimethyl fumarate),” the investigators wrote.
Currently available biologic agents targeting IL-23 include guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tildrakizumab (Ilumya). These agents require intravenous or subcutaneous administration, whereas JNJ-77242113 is taken orally, giving it a theoretical advantage in terms of patient preference.
The novel drug must be taken twice daily on an empty stomach at least 2 hours before food or drink, and those who take it must wait an additional 30 minutes to eat or drink after taking the drug. (This news organization has learned that in planned phase 3 studies, patients will be instructed to take a double daily dose on awakening and then wait 30 minutes for eating or drinking.)
‘Profoundly Effective’
The results of this study have convinced at least one former skeptic of the efficacy of the novel agent.
“They asked me to do the trial, and I turned it down, because I didn’t believe it would work,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean for Clinical Therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York, NY.
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Lebwohl said that he was initially dubious that a peptide, a short chain of amino acids directed against a receptor, could be effective because it would likely be digested in the intestinal tract.
“Indeed, more than 99% of it is digested, but the data show that the tiny amount that gets through is profoundly effective,” he said.
“I would never have believed that this was going to work – and it did,” Dr. Lebwohl added.
He has signed on as an investigator in the currently recruiting phase 3 ICONIC-LEAD trial, in which JNJ-77242113 will be tested against placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In an editorial accompanying the study in the NEJM, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, vice chair of clinical research and medical director of the Dermatology Clinical Studies Unit at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that if confirmed in larger studies, the PASI 90 rate at the highest dose “would be similar to the most effective injectable biologics,” with no evidence of increased adverse events at higher doses.
“However, two occurrences of infection (COVID-19 and an infected cyst) and a suicide attempt were reported as serious adverse events; larger trials will be needed to determine whether such events are attributable to chance, psoriasis itself, or inhibition of interleukin-23 signaling,” cautioned Dr. Gelfand, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center at the University of Pennsylvania.
In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said that currently available IL-23 signaling inhibitors have an excellent safety profile and that the investigational oral agent also appears to be very safe. “It’s seeing a target whose effects are known, and the effects are all good and not bad,” he said.
FRONTIER-1 Details
The investigators enrolled eligible adults aged 18 years or older who had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis as defined by an Investigator’s Global Assessment score ≥ 3, a total body-surface area of psoriasis involvement of at least 10%, and a PASI score ≥ 12 who had received their diagnosis of plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before starting the trial. The participants had to be candidates for phototherapy or systemic psoriasis therapy.
Patients were randomly assigned to the active agent at doses of 25 mg once or twice daily, 50 mg once daily, or 100 mg once or twice daily for 16 weeks.
There was a clear dose response, with 37% of patients assigned to 25-mg once-daily dose meeting the primary endpoint of a PASI 75 response at week 16 compared with 51% of those assigned to the 25-mg twice-daily dose, 58% assigned to 50-mg once-daily dose, 65% assigned to 100-mg once-daily dose, and 79% assigned to 100-mg twice-daily dose (P for dose response < .001).
As noted previously, 9% of patients in the placebo group had a PASI 75 response at week 16.
After a mean duration of 15.9 weeks, adverse events after the first dose of JNJ-77242113 (all dose groups were pooled for the safety analysis) were reported in 47% of patients on the 25-mg once-daily dose, 49% on 25-mg twice-daily dose, 60% on 50-mg once-daily dose, 44% on 100-mg once-daily dose, and 62% on 100-mg twice-daily dose. Adverse events after the first dose occurred in 51% of patients assigned to placebo.
The incidence of adverse events did not increase significantly with successively higher dose levels.
As noted by Dr. Gelfand in his editorial, there were three serious adverse events, all occurring in patients on the active drug: a case of COVID-19 in one patient and a suicide attempt in one patient, both in the 100-mg once-daily dose group, and an infected cyst in the 50-mg once-daily group. All three events were determined by the principal investigator and the sponsor to be unrelated to JNJ-77242113.
There were no reports of deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, or incident cancers during the trial.
The study was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Bissonnette disclosed institutional research funding and advisory board participation and honoraria with Janssen. Dr. Gelfand disclosed consulting for Janssen Biotech. Dr. Lebwohl disclosed institutional research funding from Janssen but no personal fees.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Surgery Shows Longer-Term Benefits for Dupuytren Contracture
Dupuytren contracture can be treated with three invasive methods, but new data from a randomized controlled trial show better 2-year success rates for surgery than for needle fasciotomy and collagenase injection, despite retreatments.
The common hereditary disorder affects the palmar fascia in middle-aged and older people, more often men. The disease typically affects the ring and little fingers and they may curl toward the palm. The disease can’t be cured, but can be eased.
Findings of the study, led by Mikko Petteri Räisänen, MD, with the Department of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, and Tampere University, Tampere, both in Finland, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Initially, Outcomes Similar
Initially, in the multisite, randomized controlled, outcome assessor–blinded, superiority trial, the outcomes were similar among the treatments, the authors write, but at 2 years only the surgery group maintained the success rate.
The primary outcome was more than 50% contracture release and patients reaching the patient-acceptable symptom state. Secondary outcomes included hand function, pain, patient satisfaction, quality of life, finger flexion, residual contracture angle, risk for retreatment, and serious adverse events.
A total of 292 (97%) and 284 (94%) patients completed the 3-month and 2-year follow ups, respectively.
Success rates at 3 months were similar: 71% (95% CI, 62%-80%) for surgery; 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for needle fasciotomy; and 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for collagenase injection.
At 2 Years, Surgery Superior
At 2 years, however, surgery had superior success rates. Surgery success rates vs needle fasciotomy were 78% vs 50% (adjusted risk difference, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.43).
Surgery success rates vs collagenase injection were 78% vs 65% (aRD, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26).
“Secondary analyses paralleled with the primary analysis,” the authors write.
Patients may choose surgery despite initial morbidity which includes potential time off work and higher costs than the other options if the long-term outcome is better, the authors write.
“Collagenase is likely a viable alternative to needle fasciotomy only if its costs are substantially reduced,” the authors write.
A strength of the study is its generalizability, as researchers recruited patients in a setting with universal healthcare where few people seek care outside public hospitals.
Another strength of the trial is that the blinded outcome assessors measured the contracture angles with the participant’s hand covered by a rubber glove and patients were instructed not to reveal their treatment group to the assessor.
Some Physicians Offer Noninvasive Treatments First
Family physician Shannon Scott, DO, medical director of the Midwestern University Multispecialty Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, treats many patients with the contracture.
In her practice, patients come to her seeking noninvasive options first. But if they are not satisfied with their hand function after noninvasive treatments such as osteopathic manipulative treatment, physical therapy, and a home exercise program, the next steps are the choices compared in the study. The findings of this randomized controlled trial, she says, will help her in counseling patients choosing among those options.
“What’s important for me as a family physician to understand is more about the path that led to this decision” to seek more invasive treatment and whether the patients in the study had first completed a course of noninvasive care, Dr. Scott says.
The condition, especially in the population most affected — older adults — can greatly affect activities of daily living, she noted. Patients may also often have other conditions contributing to the symptoms of Dupuytren contracture in the neck, arm, or shoulder, for instance, that limit range of motion or cause pain. Addressing those symptoms noninvasively may help relieve the contracture, she says.
Asking patients about their goals is essential, Dr. Scott says. “What patients are looking for is function and the definition for one patient may be different than the level of function for another. Many patients get to a desired level of function with nonsurgical options first.”
A First for the Comparison
Dawn LaPorte, MD, a hand surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who also was not part of the study, says although surgery was thought to have better long-term success rates, this is the first time the data have been able to show that at 2 years.
She added that the results are particularly striking because the endpoint was a 50% release when surgeons hope for a complete release. Even with the 50% release outcome at 2 years, surgery had better success.
She noted that the authors plan to look at outcomes at 5 and 10 years, but, she says, “the fact that surgery is already significantly better at 2 years really says a lot.”
Treatments Have Tradeoffs
She says the conclusions may change the discussions physicians have with patients.
Collagenase injections are an office procedure, and there’s no anesthesia. “There’s usually no lost time from work, and they can use their hand pretty normally the following day,” Dr. LaPorte says. One downside, compared with surgery, is that there may be a more frequent recurrence rate. Patients may have a skin tear that usually heals over a couple of weeks, she added.
Additionally, “the collagenase drug is very expensive,” she notes, so preapproval is important so that the patient doesn’t have to pay out of pocket.
Needle fasciotomy can also be done in the office without anesthesia. There’s less time off work than with surgery.
“With both that and the injection, they should see release of the contracture right away,” Dr. LaPorte says, but the concern is a quicker recurrence rate.
While surgery isn’t a cure, she says, and there is a lower recurrence rate, it typically means time off work, anesthesia, and an incision to heal, and may mean postoperative therapy.
The study was funded by the Research Council of Finland. Disclosures are available with the full text.
Dr. LaPorte and Dr. Scott report no relevant financial relationships.
Dupuytren contracture can be treated with three invasive methods, but new data from a randomized controlled trial show better 2-year success rates for surgery than for needle fasciotomy and collagenase injection, despite retreatments.
The common hereditary disorder affects the palmar fascia in middle-aged and older people, more often men. The disease typically affects the ring and little fingers and they may curl toward the palm. The disease can’t be cured, but can be eased.
Findings of the study, led by Mikko Petteri Räisänen, MD, with the Department of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, and Tampere University, Tampere, both in Finland, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Initially, Outcomes Similar
Initially, in the multisite, randomized controlled, outcome assessor–blinded, superiority trial, the outcomes were similar among the treatments, the authors write, but at 2 years only the surgery group maintained the success rate.
The primary outcome was more than 50% contracture release and patients reaching the patient-acceptable symptom state. Secondary outcomes included hand function, pain, patient satisfaction, quality of life, finger flexion, residual contracture angle, risk for retreatment, and serious adverse events.
A total of 292 (97%) and 284 (94%) patients completed the 3-month and 2-year follow ups, respectively.
Success rates at 3 months were similar: 71% (95% CI, 62%-80%) for surgery; 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for needle fasciotomy; and 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for collagenase injection.
At 2 Years, Surgery Superior
At 2 years, however, surgery had superior success rates. Surgery success rates vs needle fasciotomy were 78% vs 50% (adjusted risk difference, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.43).
Surgery success rates vs collagenase injection were 78% vs 65% (aRD, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26).
“Secondary analyses paralleled with the primary analysis,” the authors write.
Patients may choose surgery despite initial morbidity which includes potential time off work and higher costs than the other options if the long-term outcome is better, the authors write.
“Collagenase is likely a viable alternative to needle fasciotomy only if its costs are substantially reduced,” the authors write.
A strength of the study is its generalizability, as researchers recruited patients in a setting with universal healthcare where few people seek care outside public hospitals.
Another strength of the trial is that the blinded outcome assessors measured the contracture angles with the participant’s hand covered by a rubber glove and patients were instructed not to reveal their treatment group to the assessor.
Some Physicians Offer Noninvasive Treatments First
Family physician Shannon Scott, DO, medical director of the Midwestern University Multispecialty Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, treats many patients with the contracture.
In her practice, patients come to her seeking noninvasive options first. But if they are not satisfied with their hand function after noninvasive treatments such as osteopathic manipulative treatment, physical therapy, and a home exercise program, the next steps are the choices compared in the study. The findings of this randomized controlled trial, she says, will help her in counseling patients choosing among those options.
“What’s important for me as a family physician to understand is more about the path that led to this decision” to seek more invasive treatment and whether the patients in the study had first completed a course of noninvasive care, Dr. Scott says.
The condition, especially in the population most affected — older adults — can greatly affect activities of daily living, she noted. Patients may also often have other conditions contributing to the symptoms of Dupuytren contracture in the neck, arm, or shoulder, for instance, that limit range of motion or cause pain. Addressing those symptoms noninvasively may help relieve the contracture, she says.
Asking patients about their goals is essential, Dr. Scott says. “What patients are looking for is function and the definition for one patient may be different than the level of function for another. Many patients get to a desired level of function with nonsurgical options first.”
A First for the Comparison
Dawn LaPorte, MD, a hand surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who also was not part of the study, says although surgery was thought to have better long-term success rates, this is the first time the data have been able to show that at 2 years.
She added that the results are particularly striking because the endpoint was a 50% release when surgeons hope for a complete release. Even with the 50% release outcome at 2 years, surgery had better success.
She noted that the authors plan to look at outcomes at 5 and 10 years, but, she says, “the fact that surgery is already significantly better at 2 years really says a lot.”
Treatments Have Tradeoffs
She says the conclusions may change the discussions physicians have with patients.
Collagenase injections are an office procedure, and there’s no anesthesia. “There’s usually no lost time from work, and they can use their hand pretty normally the following day,” Dr. LaPorte says. One downside, compared with surgery, is that there may be a more frequent recurrence rate. Patients may have a skin tear that usually heals over a couple of weeks, she added.
Additionally, “the collagenase drug is very expensive,” she notes, so preapproval is important so that the patient doesn’t have to pay out of pocket.
Needle fasciotomy can also be done in the office without anesthesia. There’s less time off work than with surgery.
“With both that and the injection, they should see release of the contracture right away,” Dr. LaPorte says, but the concern is a quicker recurrence rate.
While surgery isn’t a cure, she says, and there is a lower recurrence rate, it typically means time off work, anesthesia, and an incision to heal, and may mean postoperative therapy.
The study was funded by the Research Council of Finland. Disclosures are available with the full text.
Dr. LaPorte and Dr. Scott report no relevant financial relationships.
Dupuytren contracture can be treated with three invasive methods, but new data from a randomized controlled trial show better 2-year success rates for surgery than for needle fasciotomy and collagenase injection, despite retreatments.
The common hereditary disorder affects the palmar fascia in middle-aged and older people, more often men. The disease typically affects the ring and little fingers and they may curl toward the palm. The disease can’t be cured, but can be eased.
Findings of the study, led by Mikko Petteri Räisänen, MD, with the Department of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, and Tampere University, Tampere, both in Finland, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Initially, Outcomes Similar
Initially, in the multisite, randomized controlled, outcome assessor–blinded, superiority trial, the outcomes were similar among the treatments, the authors write, but at 2 years only the surgery group maintained the success rate.
The primary outcome was more than 50% contracture release and patients reaching the patient-acceptable symptom state. Secondary outcomes included hand function, pain, patient satisfaction, quality of life, finger flexion, residual contracture angle, risk for retreatment, and serious adverse events.
A total of 292 (97%) and 284 (94%) patients completed the 3-month and 2-year follow ups, respectively.
Success rates at 3 months were similar: 71% (95% CI, 62%-80%) for surgery; 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for needle fasciotomy; and 73% (95% CI, 64%-82%) for collagenase injection.
At 2 Years, Surgery Superior
At 2 years, however, surgery had superior success rates. Surgery success rates vs needle fasciotomy were 78% vs 50% (adjusted risk difference, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.43).
Surgery success rates vs collagenase injection were 78% vs 65% (aRD, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26).
“Secondary analyses paralleled with the primary analysis,” the authors write.
Patients may choose surgery despite initial morbidity which includes potential time off work and higher costs than the other options if the long-term outcome is better, the authors write.
“Collagenase is likely a viable alternative to needle fasciotomy only if its costs are substantially reduced,” the authors write.
A strength of the study is its generalizability, as researchers recruited patients in a setting with universal healthcare where few people seek care outside public hospitals.
Another strength of the trial is that the blinded outcome assessors measured the contracture angles with the participant’s hand covered by a rubber glove and patients were instructed not to reveal their treatment group to the assessor.
Some Physicians Offer Noninvasive Treatments First
Family physician Shannon Scott, DO, medical director of the Midwestern University Multispecialty Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, treats many patients with the contracture.
In her practice, patients come to her seeking noninvasive options first. But if they are not satisfied with their hand function after noninvasive treatments such as osteopathic manipulative treatment, physical therapy, and a home exercise program, the next steps are the choices compared in the study. The findings of this randomized controlled trial, she says, will help her in counseling patients choosing among those options.
“What’s important for me as a family physician to understand is more about the path that led to this decision” to seek more invasive treatment and whether the patients in the study had first completed a course of noninvasive care, Dr. Scott says.
The condition, especially in the population most affected — older adults — can greatly affect activities of daily living, she noted. Patients may also often have other conditions contributing to the symptoms of Dupuytren contracture in the neck, arm, or shoulder, for instance, that limit range of motion or cause pain. Addressing those symptoms noninvasively may help relieve the contracture, she says.
Asking patients about their goals is essential, Dr. Scott says. “What patients are looking for is function and the definition for one patient may be different than the level of function for another. Many patients get to a desired level of function with nonsurgical options first.”
A First for the Comparison
Dawn LaPorte, MD, a hand surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who also was not part of the study, says although surgery was thought to have better long-term success rates, this is the first time the data have been able to show that at 2 years.
She added that the results are particularly striking because the endpoint was a 50% release when surgeons hope for a complete release. Even with the 50% release outcome at 2 years, surgery had better success.
She noted that the authors plan to look at outcomes at 5 and 10 years, but, she says, “the fact that surgery is already significantly better at 2 years really says a lot.”
Treatments Have Tradeoffs
She says the conclusions may change the discussions physicians have with patients.
Collagenase injections are an office procedure, and there’s no anesthesia. “There’s usually no lost time from work, and they can use their hand pretty normally the following day,” Dr. LaPorte says. One downside, compared with surgery, is that there may be a more frequent recurrence rate. Patients may have a skin tear that usually heals over a couple of weeks, she added.
Additionally, “the collagenase drug is very expensive,” she notes, so preapproval is important so that the patient doesn’t have to pay out of pocket.
Needle fasciotomy can also be done in the office without anesthesia. There’s less time off work than with surgery.
“With both that and the injection, they should see release of the contracture right away,” Dr. LaPorte says, but the concern is a quicker recurrence rate.
While surgery isn’t a cure, she says, and there is a lower recurrence rate, it typically means time off work, anesthesia, and an incision to heal, and may mean postoperative therapy.
The study was funded by the Research Council of Finland. Disclosures are available with the full text.
Dr. LaPorte and Dr. Scott report no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Study: Lifetime Cost of Vyjuvek Gene Therapy for DEB Could Be $15-$22 Million
according to the authors of a new study.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.
Treatment with Vyjuvek “represents an important advance in the treatment of RDEB,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, PhD, and colleagues at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law; the Department of Dermatology; and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, in their paper, published in JAMA Dermatology. But the price “will be high, potentially limiting patients’ access to it,” they added. Evidence to support it in DDEB “is less conclusive,” they wrote, noting that the pivotal phase 3 study that led to approval included one patient with DDEB.
“The wider indication granted by the FDA may lead to friction between payers on the one hand and patients and physicians on the other,” they wrote, noting a potential minimum price of $300,000 per patient a year, which was based on Krystal’s regulatory filings.
There is no cure for DEB. Vyjuvek, applied as a gel on an ongoing basis, uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
The authors estimated that in the United States, 894 individuals – largely children – with both forms of the disease would be eligible for Vyjuvek treatment in the first year. Based on the $300,000 price, spending on gene therapy could range from $179 million to $357 million for those 894 patients, they reported in the study.
Over the first 3 years, spending could range as high as $1 billion, the authors estimated. Even if patients with only the most severe disease (RDEB) — an estimated 442 patients — received treatment, spending could be $132 million and up to $400 million or more over the first 3 years, they wrote.
Some media outlets have reported that Vyjuvek could cost as much as $600,000, said Dr. Raymakers, a research fellow. That price “would double all of our estimates,” he told this news organization.
The study assumed that patients with RDEB would only live to age 50, which led to a lifetime cost estimate of $15 million. But that is likely a conservative estimate, he and his coauthors wrote, noting that many patients with RDEB die from squamous cell carcinoma, but that Vyjuvek could, by attenuating skin damage, also potentially prevent skin cancer.
Dr. Raymakers said he and his colleagues began their study when Vyjuvek was approved, and thus they did not have any real-world data on the price or payer responses. Their estimates also did not include differing dosing regimens, which also could change their spending figures.
Krystal Biotech recently reported that in its third quarter of 2023 – representing just 1 month of Vyjuvek availability – it received requests to begin treatment for 284 patients from 136 unique clinicians. Twenty percent of the start requests were for patients with the milder form (DDEB), and a third of all the requests were for patients 10 years of age or younger. The company also said that it had “received positive coverage determinations from all major commercial national health plans” and that it was on track to receive approval from most state Medicaid plans.
In 1 month, Krystal reported net Vyjuvek revenues of $8.6 million.
The authors suggested that one way to evaluate Vyjuvek’s value — especially for those with DDEB — would be through a cost-effectiveness study. While important, a cost-effectiveness study would not get at the impact on a payer, said Dr. Raymakers. “Something can be cost-effective but unaffordable to the system,” he said.
“When there’s one of these very expensive therapies, that’s one thing,” he said. “But when there’s more and more coming to market, you wonder how much can be tolerated,” said Dr. Raymakers.
CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program
The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.
“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.
Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.
But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.
according to the authors of a new study.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.
Treatment with Vyjuvek “represents an important advance in the treatment of RDEB,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, PhD, and colleagues at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law; the Department of Dermatology; and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, in their paper, published in JAMA Dermatology. But the price “will be high, potentially limiting patients’ access to it,” they added. Evidence to support it in DDEB “is less conclusive,” they wrote, noting that the pivotal phase 3 study that led to approval included one patient with DDEB.
“The wider indication granted by the FDA may lead to friction between payers on the one hand and patients and physicians on the other,” they wrote, noting a potential minimum price of $300,000 per patient a year, which was based on Krystal’s regulatory filings.
There is no cure for DEB. Vyjuvek, applied as a gel on an ongoing basis, uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
The authors estimated that in the United States, 894 individuals – largely children – with both forms of the disease would be eligible for Vyjuvek treatment in the first year. Based on the $300,000 price, spending on gene therapy could range from $179 million to $357 million for those 894 patients, they reported in the study.
Over the first 3 years, spending could range as high as $1 billion, the authors estimated. Even if patients with only the most severe disease (RDEB) — an estimated 442 patients — received treatment, spending could be $132 million and up to $400 million or more over the first 3 years, they wrote.
Some media outlets have reported that Vyjuvek could cost as much as $600,000, said Dr. Raymakers, a research fellow. That price “would double all of our estimates,” he told this news organization.
The study assumed that patients with RDEB would only live to age 50, which led to a lifetime cost estimate of $15 million. But that is likely a conservative estimate, he and his coauthors wrote, noting that many patients with RDEB die from squamous cell carcinoma, but that Vyjuvek could, by attenuating skin damage, also potentially prevent skin cancer.
Dr. Raymakers said he and his colleagues began their study when Vyjuvek was approved, and thus they did not have any real-world data on the price or payer responses. Their estimates also did not include differing dosing regimens, which also could change their spending figures.
Krystal Biotech recently reported that in its third quarter of 2023 – representing just 1 month of Vyjuvek availability – it received requests to begin treatment for 284 patients from 136 unique clinicians. Twenty percent of the start requests were for patients with the milder form (DDEB), and a third of all the requests were for patients 10 years of age or younger. The company also said that it had “received positive coverage determinations from all major commercial national health plans” and that it was on track to receive approval from most state Medicaid plans.
In 1 month, Krystal reported net Vyjuvek revenues of $8.6 million.
The authors suggested that one way to evaluate Vyjuvek’s value — especially for those with DDEB — would be through a cost-effectiveness study. While important, a cost-effectiveness study would not get at the impact on a payer, said Dr. Raymakers. “Something can be cost-effective but unaffordable to the system,” he said.
“When there’s one of these very expensive therapies, that’s one thing,” he said. “But when there’s more and more coming to market, you wonder how much can be tolerated,” said Dr. Raymakers.
CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program
The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.
“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.
Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.
But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.
according to the authors of a new study.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.
Treatment with Vyjuvek “represents an important advance in the treatment of RDEB,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, PhD, and colleagues at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law; the Department of Dermatology; and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, in their paper, published in JAMA Dermatology. But the price “will be high, potentially limiting patients’ access to it,” they added. Evidence to support it in DDEB “is less conclusive,” they wrote, noting that the pivotal phase 3 study that led to approval included one patient with DDEB.
“The wider indication granted by the FDA may lead to friction between payers on the one hand and patients and physicians on the other,” they wrote, noting a potential minimum price of $300,000 per patient a year, which was based on Krystal’s regulatory filings.
There is no cure for DEB. Vyjuvek, applied as a gel on an ongoing basis, uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.
The authors estimated that in the United States, 894 individuals – largely children – with both forms of the disease would be eligible for Vyjuvek treatment in the first year. Based on the $300,000 price, spending on gene therapy could range from $179 million to $357 million for those 894 patients, they reported in the study.
Over the first 3 years, spending could range as high as $1 billion, the authors estimated. Even if patients with only the most severe disease (RDEB) — an estimated 442 patients — received treatment, spending could be $132 million and up to $400 million or more over the first 3 years, they wrote.
Some media outlets have reported that Vyjuvek could cost as much as $600,000, said Dr. Raymakers, a research fellow. That price “would double all of our estimates,” he told this news organization.
The study assumed that patients with RDEB would only live to age 50, which led to a lifetime cost estimate of $15 million. But that is likely a conservative estimate, he and his coauthors wrote, noting that many patients with RDEB die from squamous cell carcinoma, but that Vyjuvek could, by attenuating skin damage, also potentially prevent skin cancer.
Dr. Raymakers said he and his colleagues began their study when Vyjuvek was approved, and thus they did not have any real-world data on the price or payer responses. Their estimates also did not include differing dosing regimens, which also could change their spending figures.
Krystal Biotech recently reported that in its third quarter of 2023 – representing just 1 month of Vyjuvek availability – it received requests to begin treatment for 284 patients from 136 unique clinicians. Twenty percent of the start requests were for patients with the milder form (DDEB), and a third of all the requests were for patients 10 years of age or younger. The company also said that it had “received positive coverage determinations from all major commercial national health plans” and that it was on track to receive approval from most state Medicaid plans.
In 1 month, Krystal reported net Vyjuvek revenues of $8.6 million.
The authors suggested that one way to evaluate Vyjuvek’s value — especially for those with DDEB — would be through a cost-effectiveness study. While important, a cost-effectiveness study would not get at the impact on a payer, said Dr. Raymakers. “Something can be cost-effective but unaffordable to the system,” he said.
“When there’s one of these very expensive therapies, that’s one thing,” he said. “But when there’s more and more coming to market, you wonder how much can be tolerated,” said Dr. Raymakers.
CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program
The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.
“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.
Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.
But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”
The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Youth Mental Health in ‘Dire Straits’
, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.
The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.
“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
State of Emergency
Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency.
Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years.
In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively.
The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%).
Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%).
Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.
Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes.
Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith
“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.
In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.”
The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote.
Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested.
On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added.
“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).”
The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.
The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.
“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
State of Emergency
Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency.
Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years.
In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively.
The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%).
Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%).
Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.
Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes.
Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith
“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.
In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.”
The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote.
Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested.
On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added.
“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).”
The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.
The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.
“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
State of Emergency
Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency.
Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years.
In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively.
The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%).
Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%).
Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.
Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes.
Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith
“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.
In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.”
The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote.
Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested.
On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added.
“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).”
The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dupilumab Improves AD Affecting the Hands, Feet
TOPLINE:
compared with placebo.
METHODOLOGY:
- The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
- The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
- Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
- At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
- At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
- The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.
IN PRACTICE:
The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.
TOPLINE:
compared with placebo.
METHODOLOGY:
- The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
- The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
- Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
- At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
- At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
- The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.
IN PRACTICE:
The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.
TOPLINE:
compared with placebo.
METHODOLOGY:
- The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
- The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
- Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
- At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
- At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
- The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.
IN PRACTICE:
The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.