Liz Scherer

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

From the American Medical Association to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health equity is the topic de jour. But how do you get health professionals, lawmakers, lactation providers, and the community on the same page, especially when it comes to addressing breastfeeding disparities?

It depends on who you ask.

In Georgia, a 2018 lawsuit challenging a State Legislature Bill directed toward lactation providers sits on the desk of a trial court judge, with a decision due any day now. The bill requires these providers to be licensed in order to continue to practice and receive compensation, a move that not only threatens the health of mothers and infants, but also jeopardizes a key component of Healthy People 2030: improving breastfeeding initiation, duration, and exclusivity among African American women. A similar bill is in Committee in the New York State Legislature.

“If the Act takes effect, it will force an estimated 800 different practitioners out of business and leave only 162 International Board Certified Lactation Counselors (IBCLCs) for the whole state,” Jaimie Cavanaugh, an attorney at the Institute for Justice and plaintiff coattorney said in an interview.

Ms. Cavanaugh also said that geographical data for the 162 IBCLCs demonstrate that they primarily work in urban vs. rural areas, and mostly in formal settings, factors that will further exacerbate disparities and limit access to much needed resources.
 

Bridging the breastfeeding divide

While overall breastfeeding initiation rates in the United States have steadily increased over the past decade from 72% to roughly 84%, only a quarter of infants are exclusively breastfed through 6 months, a rate well below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 42.4% (and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations). Comparatively, breastfeeding initiation (75.8%) and exclusivity (17.2%) rates among African-American women are considerably lower.

The effects are great: Breastfed infants have lower risks for asthma, obesity, and type 1 diabetes, while mothers who breastfeed have lower risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and gynecological cancers. Notably, most of these conditions disproportionately affect African Americans, compared with Whites and other ethnicities.

A key to changing these disparities appears to lie with the type of health care provided as well as the ease by which mothers can access it.

For example, findings of a small cross-sectional study published Jan. 31 in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities highlight the importance of a broad umbrella of support for African American mothers’ feeding choices. Not only does this umbrella include medical professionals and IBCLCs, but also certified lactation counselors (CLCs), peer counselors trained under the National Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, partners, family, and the community at-large.

“We thought we were doing it right,” Lydia Furman, MD, lead study author and pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Ahuja Center for Women & Children in Cleveland, told this news organization. “We have a WIC peer helper, an African American IBCLC and an African American CLC, and a breastfeeding support group twice a week but nobody was using these resources.”

One of the most important findings of the study – which aimed to understand factors driving breastfeeding practices and identify supports – was that women want help when they need it. “It doesn’t mean that you can’t have resources that are available during the day, but it means that a patient support group at 11 a.m. on Tuesday doesn’t help at all if you need it Monday at 2 a.m.” Dr. Furman said.

Take TaNeeka Davis, a 34-year-old mother of three residing outside of Atlanta whose personal experience mimics those of the women in Dr. Furman’s study. “I did breastfeed my first child; when I was in the hospital. I saw lactation one time and he latched perfectly but when I left the hospital, I couldn’t get him to latch anymore,” she said.

Precious T. Photography, Atlanta

Ms. Davis explained that she was told that she would have to wait 2-3 weeks before she was able to meet again with a lactation specialist, so she found herself supplementing with formula, and eventually seeking nontraditional help.

“The traditional medical model does not allow for me to be able to reach out and talk to my doctor immediately, does not allow me to be like, ‘Hey, can you call me back in the next 15-20 minutes or an hour because my baby’s very fussy,’ ” Ms. Davis said. “I don’t have that kind of support.”
 

It takes a village

A 2017 Cochrane review reinforces the value of providing women with predictable, tailored, and multifaceted breastfeeding support offered by professional or lay/peer people or a combination of both.

This model is embodied in ROSE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating breastfeeding disparities and barriers experienced by mothers of color, including inadequate medical or family support, lack of shared decision-making, recognition of financial or psychological challenges, and historical antecedents. Many of these women’s ancestors were forced to wet-nurse slave masters’ children instead of breastfeeding their own children.

One of several national organizations solely dedicated to this issue, ROSE offers a variety of services and resources ranging from lactation counseling and peer support training programs to training for health professionals (for example, pediatricians, nurses) that serve communities of color. A companion arm (ROBE, Reaching Our Brothers Everywhere) aims to bring men into the fold through breastfeeding education and peer-to-peer connection. All of these services are provided in a judgment-free, culturally sensitive environment.

“We need to look not only into maternal health issues ... but also offer support to people who are working in the birthing community,” cofounder Mary N. Jackson, a CLC, WIC lactation consultant, and former president of the Georgia Breastfeeding Coalition said in an interview.

“We have Morehouse pediatricians coming to us just to talk to moms on how they can support them in the community. We have training – Community Transformers – where we talk to moms regardless of their social backgrounds; they’re working in the community helping other moms with breastfeeding, or moms will call them (with) their questions,” Ms. Jackson explained. Ms. Davis is now one of these women.

“Having the women of ROSE support me ... was such a game-changer,” she said. “Sometimes that support that you need, that is helpful, is peer-to-peer,” she noted, adding that ROSE does a lot more than fill in the gaps medically, but also psychologically.”
 

More pillars, less judgment

TaNeeka Davis pointed out that removing a pillar in the community like ROSE and other grassroots support outside of traditional models will likely have the opposite effect that lawmakers and the lobbyists fighting for certification and licensing aim to achieve, especially if other states adopt the same approach.

“The disparities are going to get even greater, you are going to see bigger gaps, less women even initiating breastfeeding. Why start something that you can’t finish? You can’t tell me that making laws that limit the amount of help we are able to get when it comes to breastfeeding will not have a detrimental effect – health effects – later in life,” she said.

Neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Davis believe that medical professionals should be replaced but rather that adjunctive, community-based help is integral for bridging the breastfeeding divide.

As clinicians, “we have to go beyond not judging to trying to figure out where people are, to meet your patients where they are,” said Dr. Furman. “It’s like the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility, which is more of an ongoing process.

Dr. Furman and Ms. Davis report no relevant financial relationships. Ms. Cavanaugh is the coattorney on the lawsuit. Ms. Jackson is employed by ROSE.

*This story was updated on Feb. 11, 2022.

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four decades into the AIDS epidemic and for some, it’s as if gains in awareness, advances in prevention and treatment, and the concept of undetected equals untransmissable (U=U) never happened. In its place, people living with HIV continue to face discrimination and stigma that affect nearly every aspect of the care continuum, from testing, prevention, and treatment to linkage to sexual, health, and reproductive services.

Accordingly, findings from a Harris poll conducted Oct. 13-18, 2021, among 5,047 adults (18 and older) residing in Australia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reveal that 88% of those surveyed believe that negative perceptions toward people living with HIV persist even though HIV infection can be effectively managed with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Conversely, three-quarters (76%) are unaware of U=U, and the fact that someone with HIV who is taking effective treatment cannot pass it on to their partner. Two-thirds incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV can pass it onto their baby, even when they are ART adherent.

“The survey made me think of people who work in HIV clinics, and how much of a bubble I think that we in the HIV field live in,” Nneka Nwokolo, MBBS, senior global medical director at ViiV Healthcare, London, and practicing consultant in sexual health and HIV medicine, told this news organization. “I think that we generally feel that everyone knows as much as we do or feels the way that we do.”
 

Misconceptions abound across the globe

The online survey, which was commissioned by ViiV Healthcare, also highlights that one in five adults do not know that anyone can acquire HIV regardless of lifestyle, thereby perpetuating the stereotype that HIV is a disease that only affects certain populations, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) or transgender women (TGW). 

Pervasive stereotypes and stigmatization only serve to magnify preexisting social inequities that affect access to appropriate care. A recent editorial published in the journal AIDS and Behavior underscores that stigma experienced by marginalized populations in particular (for example, Black MSM, TGW) is directly linked to decreased access to and use of effective HIV prevention and treatment services. Additionally, once stigma becomes internalized, it might further affect overall well-being, mental health, and social support.

“One of the most significant consequences of the ongoing stigma is that people are scared to test and then they end up coming to services late [when] they’re really ill,” explained Dr. Nwokolo. “It goes back to the early days when HIV was a death sentence ... it’s still there. I have one patient who to this day hates the fact that he has HIV, that he has to come to the clinic – it’s a reminder of why he hates himself.”

Great strides in testing and advances in treatment might be helping to reframe HIV as a chronic but treatable and preventable disease. Nevertheless, survey findings also revealed that nearly three out of five adults incorrectly believe that a person living with HIV will have a shorter lifespan than someone who is HIV negative, even if they are on effective treatment. 

These beliefs are especially true among Dr. Nwokolo’s patient base, most of whom are Africans who’ve immigrated to the United Kingdom from countries that have been devastated by the HIV epidemic. “Those who’ve never tested are reluctant to do so because they are afraid that they will have the same outcome as the people that they know that they’ve left behind,” she said.
 

HIV stigma in the era of 90-90-90

While there has been progress toward achieving UN AID’s 90-90-90 targets (that is, 90% living with HIV know their status, 90% who know their status are on ART, and 90% of people on ART are virally suppressed), exclusion and isolation – the key hallmarks of stigma – may ultimately be the most important barriers preventing a lofty goal to end the AIDS epidemic by the year 2030.

“Here we are, 40 years in and we are still facing such ignorance, some stigma,” Carl Schmid, MBA, former cochair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and executive director of HIV+Policy Institute, told this news organization. “It’s gotten better, but it is really putting a damper on people being tested, getting treated, getting access to PrEP.” Mr. Schmid was not involved in the Harris Poll.

Mr. Schmid also said that, in addition to broader outreach and education as well as dissemination of information about HIV and AIDS from the White House and other government leaders, physician involvement is essential. 

“They’re the ones that need to step up. They have to talk about sex with their patients, [but] they don’t do that, especially in the South among certain populations,” he noted.

Data support the unique challenges faced by at-risk individuals living in the southern United States. Not only do Southern states account for roughly half of all new HIV cases annually, but Black MSM and Black women account for the majority of new diagnoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data have also demonstrated discrimination and prejudice toward people with HIV persist among many medical professionals in the South (especially those working in rural areas).

But this is not only a Southern problem; a 2018 review of studies in clinicians across the United States published in AIDS Patient Care and STDs linked provider fear of acquiring HIV through occupational exposure to reduced quality of care, refusal of care, and anxiety, especially among providers with limited awareness of PrEP. Discordant attitudes around making a priority to address HIV-related stigma versus other health care needs also reduced overall care delivery and patient experience.

“I think that the first thing that we as HIV clinicians can and should do – and is definitely within our power to do – is to educate our peers about HIV,” Dr. Nwokolo said, “HIV has gone off the radar, but it’s still out there.”

The study was commissioned by Viiv Healthcare. Dr. Nwokolo is an employee of ViiV Healthcare. Mr. Schmid disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

Can geospatial mapping fill in the gaps in areas lagging behind in global efforts to end the HIV epidemic?

That’s what Diego Cuadros, PhD, assistant professor of health geography and disease modeling at the University of Cincinnati, set out to learn using geospatial data combined with prevalence data to identify the most underserved areas in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for HIV services.

Study findings, which were published Nov. 24 in PLOS Global Public Health, highlight that as many as 1.5 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) in SSA have more than an hour’s motorized travel time both ways to access care, while roughly 3 million must set aside, at minimum, 30 minutes. When the only mode of transportation is walking, as much as 95.3% of underserved areas are faced with at least 30 minutes travel time.

This is simply the tip of the overall problem, Dr. Cuadros told this news organization.

“We are able to estimate how many people [whose] quality of life is being affected by HIV because they are not on treatment and most probably, HIV incidence is high in those areas. But [it’s not as simple as just] increasing the number of health care facilities,” he said. “We need to find strategies to be able to cover this population.”

Dr. Cuadros also noted that the problem goes both ways. “It’s hard for them to move, and it’s [also] hard to reach them,” he explained.
 

Mapping care, or lack thereof

Dr. Cuadros and team used two primary sources of data to generate high-resolution maps of underserved SSA areas: estimated number of PLHIV between the ages of 15 and 49 years in 47 SSA countries paired with population density and global map of travel time to the nearest health facility by motorized and nonmotorized (that is, walking) transportation. Combining these data allowed them to then detail the distance from access to care for every 5 km².

The mapping exercise showed that 90.5% of the total territory, in which about 7 million PLHIV resided, had more than 10 minutes motorized travel time to the nearest health care facility, while 74.6% were within 30 minutes, and 58.9% were within 60 minutes. Increases in threshold travel times (from 10 to 60 minutes) corresponded directly to declines in the average proportion of underserved areas (from 80.9% to 42.6%). However, in certain countries like Sudan and Mauritania, 99.4% of the areas were underserved at the 10 minute threshold, while more than 90% were underserved at the 60 minute threshold.

Corresponding rates for nonmotorized access to health services were similar: 88.7% (~17.6 million) PLHIV had 10 minutes walking time to health care services, while 57.8% (~11.5 million) had at least 30 minutes, and 33.0% (~6.6 million), at least 60 minutes. Likewise, as threshold times increased from 10 to 60 minutes, the percentage of affected PLHIV declined (to roughly 50% in two-thirds of the countries). But more than 70% of PLHIV resided in underserved areas in countries like Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sudan.
 

Geographical allocation of health service facilities underscores treatment gaps

“We think that most PLHIV live in urban areas or close to urban areas, and most of the health care facilities in Africa are concentrated in those areas. But [roughly 8 million people with HIV] are living in rural areas, and for most, movement is very difficult,” explained Dr. Cuadros, meaning that the majority are not on treatment despite the high incidence of HIV.

Inarguably, the pandemic has interrupted HIV services and treatment substantially on the African continent, further challenging any efforts to translate these study findings into actionable strategies.

“We’ve known for quite a while that distance and travel times and travel expenses are known risks for nonadherence, for lack of access to diagnostics, for people at risk for exposure,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview. (Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the study.)

“What’s new is the ability to really look at this across geographies and really home in on how many people face very long times and distances for travel. That’s a really important contribution,” he said.

Dr. Cuadros pointed out that these hard-to-reach populations are key to achieving the UNAID’s HIV elimination targets. “We’re going to have these pockets of transmission that are going to be really important for epidemic control,” he explained.

Toward that end, the onus appears to extend well beyond solutions that emphasize difficulty in reaching people from the provider perspective. “There’s quite a lot of what you might want to think of as blaming the victim for when people miss appointments, don’t appear to be adherent, [or] can’t stay reliably suppressed,” said Dr. Beyrer.

“It’s really important for providers in general to include in history and intake how far people have come, what their challenges are with travel, to really pay attention to those issues. Having this elegant analysis, this level of detail, is an important first step,” he added.

Dr. Cuadros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer reports a consulting agreement with Merck.

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

Can geospatial mapping fill in the gaps in areas lagging behind in global efforts to end the HIV epidemic?

That’s what Diego Cuadros, PhD, assistant professor of health geography and disease modeling at the University of Cincinnati, set out to learn using geospatial data combined with prevalence data to identify the most underserved areas in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for HIV services.

Study findings, which were published Nov. 24 in PLOS Global Public Health, highlight that as many as 1.5 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) in SSA have more than an hour’s motorized travel time both ways to access care, while roughly 3 million must set aside, at minimum, 30 minutes. When the only mode of transportation is walking, as much as 95.3% of underserved areas are faced with at least 30 minutes travel time.

This is simply the tip of the overall problem, Dr. Cuadros told this news organization.

“We are able to estimate how many people [whose] quality of life is being affected by HIV because they are not on treatment and most probably, HIV incidence is high in those areas. But [it’s not as simple as just] increasing the number of health care facilities,” he said. “We need to find strategies to be able to cover this population.”

Dr. Cuadros also noted that the problem goes both ways. “It’s hard for them to move, and it’s [also] hard to reach them,” he explained.
 

Mapping care, or lack thereof

Dr. Cuadros and team used two primary sources of data to generate high-resolution maps of underserved SSA areas: estimated number of PLHIV between the ages of 15 and 49 years in 47 SSA countries paired with population density and global map of travel time to the nearest health facility by motorized and nonmotorized (that is, walking) transportation. Combining these data allowed them to then detail the distance from access to care for every 5 km².

The mapping exercise showed that 90.5% of the total territory, in which about 7 million PLHIV resided, had more than 10 minutes motorized travel time to the nearest health care facility, while 74.6% were within 30 minutes, and 58.9% were within 60 minutes. Increases in threshold travel times (from 10 to 60 minutes) corresponded directly to declines in the average proportion of underserved areas (from 80.9% to 42.6%). However, in certain countries like Sudan and Mauritania, 99.4% of the areas were underserved at the 10 minute threshold, while more than 90% were underserved at the 60 minute threshold.

Corresponding rates for nonmotorized access to health services were similar: 88.7% (~17.6 million) PLHIV had 10 minutes walking time to health care services, while 57.8% (~11.5 million) had at least 30 minutes, and 33.0% (~6.6 million), at least 60 minutes. Likewise, as threshold times increased from 10 to 60 minutes, the percentage of affected PLHIV declined (to roughly 50% in two-thirds of the countries). But more than 70% of PLHIV resided in underserved areas in countries like Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sudan.
 

Geographical allocation of health service facilities underscores treatment gaps

“We think that most PLHIV live in urban areas or close to urban areas, and most of the health care facilities in Africa are concentrated in those areas. But [roughly 8 million people with HIV] are living in rural areas, and for most, movement is very difficult,” explained Dr. Cuadros, meaning that the majority are not on treatment despite the high incidence of HIV.

Inarguably, the pandemic has interrupted HIV services and treatment substantially on the African continent, further challenging any efforts to translate these study findings into actionable strategies.

“We’ve known for quite a while that distance and travel times and travel expenses are known risks for nonadherence, for lack of access to diagnostics, for people at risk for exposure,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview. (Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the study.)

“What’s new is the ability to really look at this across geographies and really home in on how many people face very long times and distances for travel. That’s a really important contribution,” he said.

Dr. Cuadros pointed out that these hard-to-reach populations are key to achieving the UNAID’s HIV elimination targets. “We’re going to have these pockets of transmission that are going to be really important for epidemic control,” he explained.

Toward that end, the onus appears to extend well beyond solutions that emphasize difficulty in reaching people from the provider perspective. “There’s quite a lot of what you might want to think of as blaming the victim for when people miss appointments, don’t appear to be adherent, [or] can’t stay reliably suppressed,” said Dr. Beyrer.

“It’s really important for providers in general to include in history and intake how far people have come, what their challenges are with travel, to really pay attention to those issues. Having this elegant analysis, this level of detail, is an important first step,” he added.

Dr. Cuadros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer reports a consulting agreement with Merck.

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

Can geospatial mapping fill in the gaps in areas lagging behind in global efforts to end the HIV epidemic?

That’s what Diego Cuadros, PhD, assistant professor of health geography and disease modeling at the University of Cincinnati, set out to learn using geospatial data combined with prevalence data to identify the most underserved areas in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for HIV services.

Study findings, which were published Nov. 24 in PLOS Global Public Health, highlight that as many as 1.5 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) in SSA have more than an hour’s motorized travel time both ways to access care, while roughly 3 million must set aside, at minimum, 30 minutes. When the only mode of transportation is walking, as much as 95.3% of underserved areas are faced with at least 30 minutes travel time.

This is simply the tip of the overall problem, Dr. Cuadros told this news organization.

“We are able to estimate how many people [whose] quality of life is being affected by HIV because they are not on treatment and most probably, HIV incidence is high in those areas. But [it’s not as simple as just] increasing the number of health care facilities,” he said. “We need to find strategies to be able to cover this population.”

Dr. Cuadros also noted that the problem goes both ways. “It’s hard for them to move, and it’s [also] hard to reach them,” he explained.
 

Mapping care, or lack thereof

Dr. Cuadros and team used two primary sources of data to generate high-resolution maps of underserved SSA areas: estimated number of PLHIV between the ages of 15 and 49 years in 47 SSA countries paired with population density and global map of travel time to the nearest health facility by motorized and nonmotorized (that is, walking) transportation. Combining these data allowed them to then detail the distance from access to care for every 5 km².

The mapping exercise showed that 90.5% of the total territory, in which about 7 million PLHIV resided, had more than 10 minutes motorized travel time to the nearest health care facility, while 74.6% were within 30 minutes, and 58.9% were within 60 minutes. Increases in threshold travel times (from 10 to 60 minutes) corresponded directly to declines in the average proportion of underserved areas (from 80.9% to 42.6%). However, in certain countries like Sudan and Mauritania, 99.4% of the areas were underserved at the 10 minute threshold, while more than 90% were underserved at the 60 minute threshold.

Corresponding rates for nonmotorized access to health services were similar: 88.7% (~17.6 million) PLHIV had 10 minutes walking time to health care services, while 57.8% (~11.5 million) had at least 30 minutes, and 33.0% (~6.6 million), at least 60 minutes. Likewise, as threshold times increased from 10 to 60 minutes, the percentage of affected PLHIV declined (to roughly 50% in two-thirds of the countries). But more than 70% of PLHIV resided in underserved areas in countries like Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, South Sudan, and Sudan.
 

Geographical allocation of health service facilities underscores treatment gaps

“We think that most PLHIV live in urban areas or close to urban areas, and most of the health care facilities in Africa are concentrated in those areas. But [roughly 8 million people with HIV] are living in rural areas, and for most, movement is very difficult,” explained Dr. Cuadros, meaning that the majority are not on treatment despite the high incidence of HIV.

Inarguably, the pandemic has interrupted HIV services and treatment substantially on the African continent, further challenging any efforts to translate these study findings into actionable strategies.

“We’ve known for quite a while that distance and travel times and travel expenses are known risks for nonadherence, for lack of access to diagnostics, for people at risk for exposure,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in an interview. (Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the study.)

“What’s new is the ability to really look at this across geographies and really home in on how many people face very long times and distances for travel. That’s a really important contribution,” he said.

Dr. Cuadros pointed out that these hard-to-reach populations are key to achieving the UNAID’s HIV elimination targets. “We’re going to have these pockets of transmission that are going to be really important for epidemic control,” he explained.

Toward that end, the onus appears to extend well beyond solutions that emphasize difficulty in reaching people from the provider perspective. “There’s quite a lot of what you might want to think of as blaming the victim for when people miss appointments, don’t appear to be adherent, [or] can’t stay reliably suppressed,” said Dr. Beyrer.

“It’s really important for providers in general to include in history and intake how far people have come, what their challenges are with travel, to really pay attention to those issues. Having this elegant analysis, this level of detail, is an important first step,” he added.

Dr. Cuadros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer reports a consulting agreement with Merck.

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

A firestorm of controversy over access to HIV medications and protection against discriminatory insurance practices has been making its way through U.S. district courts for the past 3 years, pitting HIV patients against pharmacy benefits managers and, ostensibly, the healthcare industry itself.

The case, CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in December, is a weighty one for patients with HIV and the practitioners caring for them.

At odds are whether or not mandatory mail-order requirements for specialty medications violate specific provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit discrimination by programs that receive federal funds.

An amicus brief submitted on October 29 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School on behalf of five John Does and a number of medical practitioners and practitioner organizations underscores the degree to which advances in HIV treatment, viral suppression, and care linkage — not to mention the national mandate to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 — might ultimately be affected.

“We decided to file the brief at the Supreme Court level because we wanted to make sure that the perspectives of people living with HIV, their providers, and advocates were in the record,” Maryanne Tomazic, a clinical instructor at CHLPI, toldthis news organization.

“It’s important for the court to consider why robust access to prescription drug coverage and pharmacy services are so important for people living with HIV, and why it’s not appropriate to compromise access to antiretroviral therapy,” she explained.
 

A bitter pill, regardless of who swallows it

CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe focuses on a legal concept known as “disparate impact discrimination,” which refers to a policy that appears neutral but unintentionally discriminates against a protected class of people (eg, on the basis of sex, age, or ethnicity).

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will address a central question: did CVS Pharmacy, Caremark, and Caremark Specialty Pharmacy (“CVS”) discriminate against the respondents by requiring that they obtain specialty medications (including those for HIV) by mail order or drop shipment for pickup, or, alternatively, pay out-of-network prices for these medications at non-CVS pharmacies?

The decision will also address whether the ACA’s inclusion of clause 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits protected class discrimination, allows patients to challenge terms and conditions of their healthcare plans, a decision that has broad and far-reaching implications for insurers’ abilities to set plan restrictions and pricing.

A spokesperson for CVS declined to comment when contacted by this news organization but provided a link to an April 9, 2021 SCOTUS blog post about the filing. In its court filing, CVS contended that the program applies to all specialty medications (not just HIV) and simply reflects the cost/complexity of specialty medications.

Not everyone agrees that cost is the most important issue at play. Indeed, a critical take-away for practitioners is how mandated mail-order pharmacy programs can disrupt coordination of care.

“In the traditional model, the physician is talking to the pharmacists [or] talking with the patient, and you have kind of triangular communication model that helps not only the patient stay engaged in care but [also] allows the healthcare provider team to adjust the medication quickly without delay,” said Ms. Tomazic.

The John Doe statements in the original case highlight these concerns. They focus on how mandatory mail orders restrict highly personable relationships with local specialty pharmacists who are familiar with their patients’ medical histories as well as their medication dosing and adjustments and who regularly communicate with the complete care team on the patients’ behalf.

“JOHN DOE THREE and others depend on these types of long standing relationships with local pharmacists to maximize the benefits of HIV/AIDS medications and treat the complex and ever-changing needs of the HIV/AIDS patients,” wrote attorneys in the 2018 class action filing.

Other issues raised by the suit involve the following: privacy with respect to medication pickup; specialty care customer representatives’ lack of understanding and knowledge of HIV medications; incomplete prescription fills; late medication deliveries; exposure of medications to the elements; work and employment interruptions; and restrictions on early fills and reorders, which increase the risk for missed doses and potentially serious health problems, including interruptions in viral suppression and resistance.
 

Discrimination issues also raised

CHLPI’s amicus joins several others in support of the unique needs of persons with HIV, especially in Black and Hispanic/Latino communities, which are disproportionately affected by HIV.

A press release distributed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) reinforces the idea that not only are Black people more likely to have a disability other groups, owing to the country’s legacy of racial inequality, but also that they are likely to encounter unique forms of discrimination and specific barriers to full participation in society, further underscoring the need for disparate impact liability to address unfair policies and practices.

“Inequity in access to resources, including healthcare, further amplifies the instance and persistence of disabilities among Black people,” LDF attorneys wrote in the brief.

“We saw with COVID-19 that [mail-order prescription] programs can serve in a supportive role in access to care,” said Ms. Tomazic. “But we don’t want those programs to be mandated, and we don’t want to forget about communities where these kinds of programs are simply not a viable option,” she said.

Oral arguments in the case begin on December 7. A decision is expected some months later.

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A firestorm of controversy over access to HIV medications and protection against discriminatory insurance practices has been making its way through U.S. district courts for the past 3 years, pitting HIV patients against pharmacy benefits managers and, ostensibly, the healthcare industry itself.

The case, CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in December, is a weighty one for patients with HIV and the practitioners caring for them.

At odds are whether or not mandatory mail-order requirements for specialty medications violate specific provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit discrimination by programs that receive federal funds.

An amicus brief submitted on October 29 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School on behalf of five John Does and a number of medical practitioners and practitioner organizations underscores the degree to which advances in HIV treatment, viral suppression, and care linkage — not to mention the national mandate to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 — might ultimately be affected.

“We decided to file the brief at the Supreme Court level because we wanted to make sure that the perspectives of people living with HIV, their providers, and advocates were in the record,” Maryanne Tomazic, a clinical instructor at CHLPI, toldthis news organization.

“It’s important for the court to consider why robust access to prescription drug coverage and pharmacy services are so important for people living with HIV, and why it’s not appropriate to compromise access to antiretroviral therapy,” she explained.
 

A bitter pill, regardless of who swallows it

CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe focuses on a legal concept known as “disparate impact discrimination,” which refers to a policy that appears neutral but unintentionally discriminates against a protected class of people (eg, on the basis of sex, age, or ethnicity).

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will address a central question: did CVS Pharmacy, Caremark, and Caremark Specialty Pharmacy (“CVS”) discriminate against the respondents by requiring that they obtain specialty medications (including those for HIV) by mail order or drop shipment for pickup, or, alternatively, pay out-of-network prices for these medications at non-CVS pharmacies?

The decision will also address whether the ACA’s inclusion of clause 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits protected class discrimination, allows patients to challenge terms and conditions of their healthcare plans, a decision that has broad and far-reaching implications for insurers’ abilities to set plan restrictions and pricing.

A spokesperson for CVS declined to comment when contacted by this news organization but provided a link to an April 9, 2021 SCOTUS blog post about the filing. In its court filing, CVS contended that the program applies to all specialty medications (not just HIV) and simply reflects the cost/complexity of specialty medications.

Not everyone agrees that cost is the most important issue at play. Indeed, a critical take-away for practitioners is how mandated mail-order pharmacy programs can disrupt coordination of care.

“In the traditional model, the physician is talking to the pharmacists [or] talking with the patient, and you have kind of triangular communication model that helps not only the patient stay engaged in care but [also] allows the healthcare provider team to adjust the medication quickly without delay,” said Ms. Tomazic.

The John Doe statements in the original case highlight these concerns. They focus on how mandatory mail orders restrict highly personable relationships with local specialty pharmacists who are familiar with their patients’ medical histories as well as their medication dosing and adjustments and who regularly communicate with the complete care team on the patients’ behalf.

“JOHN DOE THREE and others depend on these types of long standing relationships with local pharmacists to maximize the benefits of HIV/AIDS medications and treat the complex and ever-changing needs of the HIV/AIDS patients,” wrote attorneys in the 2018 class action filing.

Other issues raised by the suit involve the following: privacy with respect to medication pickup; specialty care customer representatives’ lack of understanding and knowledge of HIV medications; incomplete prescription fills; late medication deliveries; exposure of medications to the elements; work and employment interruptions; and restrictions on early fills and reorders, which increase the risk for missed doses and potentially serious health problems, including interruptions in viral suppression and resistance.
 

Discrimination issues also raised

CHLPI’s amicus joins several others in support of the unique needs of persons with HIV, especially in Black and Hispanic/Latino communities, which are disproportionately affected by HIV.

A press release distributed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) reinforces the idea that not only are Black people more likely to have a disability other groups, owing to the country’s legacy of racial inequality, but also that they are likely to encounter unique forms of discrimination and specific barriers to full participation in society, further underscoring the need for disparate impact liability to address unfair policies and practices.

“Inequity in access to resources, including healthcare, further amplifies the instance and persistence of disabilities among Black people,” LDF attorneys wrote in the brief.

“We saw with COVID-19 that [mail-order prescription] programs can serve in a supportive role in access to care,” said Ms. Tomazic. “But we don’t want those programs to be mandated, and we don’t want to forget about communities where these kinds of programs are simply not a viable option,” she said.

Oral arguments in the case begin on December 7. A decision is expected some months later.

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A firestorm of controversy over access to HIV medications and protection against discriminatory insurance practices has been making its way through U.S. district courts for the past 3 years, pitting HIV patients against pharmacy benefits managers and, ostensibly, the healthcare industry itself.

The case, CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in December, is a weighty one for patients with HIV and the practitioners caring for them.

At odds are whether or not mandatory mail-order requirements for specialty medications violate specific provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, both of which prohibit discrimination by programs that receive federal funds.

An amicus brief submitted on October 29 by the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) of Harvard Law School on behalf of five John Does and a number of medical practitioners and practitioner organizations underscores the degree to which advances in HIV treatment, viral suppression, and care linkage — not to mention the national mandate to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 — might ultimately be affected.

“We decided to file the brief at the Supreme Court level because we wanted to make sure that the perspectives of people living with HIV, their providers, and advocates were in the record,” Maryanne Tomazic, a clinical instructor at CHLPI, toldthis news organization.

“It’s important for the court to consider why robust access to prescription drug coverage and pharmacy services are so important for people living with HIV, and why it’s not appropriate to compromise access to antiretroviral therapy,” she explained.
 

A bitter pill, regardless of who swallows it

CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe focuses on a legal concept known as “disparate impact discrimination,” which refers to a policy that appears neutral but unintentionally discriminates against a protected class of people (eg, on the basis of sex, age, or ethnicity).

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will address a central question: did CVS Pharmacy, Caremark, and Caremark Specialty Pharmacy (“CVS”) discriminate against the respondents by requiring that they obtain specialty medications (including those for HIV) by mail order or drop shipment for pickup, or, alternatively, pay out-of-network prices for these medications at non-CVS pharmacies?

The decision will also address whether the ACA’s inclusion of clause 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits protected class discrimination, allows patients to challenge terms and conditions of their healthcare plans, a decision that has broad and far-reaching implications for insurers’ abilities to set plan restrictions and pricing.

A spokesperson for CVS declined to comment when contacted by this news organization but provided a link to an April 9, 2021 SCOTUS blog post about the filing. In its court filing, CVS contended that the program applies to all specialty medications (not just HIV) and simply reflects the cost/complexity of specialty medications.

Not everyone agrees that cost is the most important issue at play. Indeed, a critical take-away for practitioners is how mandated mail-order pharmacy programs can disrupt coordination of care.

“In the traditional model, the physician is talking to the pharmacists [or] talking with the patient, and you have kind of triangular communication model that helps not only the patient stay engaged in care but [also] allows the healthcare provider team to adjust the medication quickly without delay,” said Ms. Tomazic.

The John Doe statements in the original case highlight these concerns. They focus on how mandatory mail orders restrict highly personable relationships with local specialty pharmacists who are familiar with their patients’ medical histories as well as their medication dosing and adjustments and who regularly communicate with the complete care team on the patients’ behalf.

“JOHN DOE THREE and others depend on these types of long standing relationships with local pharmacists to maximize the benefits of HIV/AIDS medications and treat the complex and ever-changing needs of the HIV/AIDS patients,” wrote attorneys in the 2018 class action filing.

Other issues raised by the suit involve the following: privacy with respect to medication pickup; specialty care customer representatives’ lack of understanding and knowledge of HIV medications; incomplete prescription fills; late medication deliveries; exposure of medications to the elements; work and employment interruptions; and restrictions on early fills and reorders, which increase the risk for missed doses and potentially serious health problems, including interruptions in viral suppression and resistance.
 

Discrimination issues also raised

CHLPI’s amicus joins several others in support of the unique needs of persons with HIV, especially in Black and Hispanic/Latino communities, which are disproportionately affected by HIV.

A press release distributed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) reinforces the idea that not only are Black people more likely to have a disability other groups, owing to the country’s legacy of racial inequality, but also that they are likely to encounter unique forms of discrimination and specific barriers to full participation in society, further underscoring the need for disparate impact liability to address unfair policies and practices.

“Inequity in access to resources, including healthcare, further amplifies the instance and persistence of disabilities among Black people,” LDF attorneys wrote in the brief.

“We saw with COVID-19 that [mail-order prescription] programs can serve in a supportive role in access to care,” said Ms. Tomazic. “But we don’t want those programs to be mandated, and we don’t want to forget about communities where these kinds of programs are simply not a viable option,” she said.

Oral arguments in the case begin on December 7. A decision is expected some months later.

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.