Federal Practitioner

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

The only HIV vaccine nearing the completion of testing trials is not effective at preventing HIV, officials announced Wednesday.

The vaccine had been in development since 2019 and was given to 3,900 study participants through October 2022, but data shows it does not protect against HIV compared with a placebo, according to developer Janssen Pharmaceutical.

Experts estimate the failure means there won’t be another potential vaccine on the horizon for 3 to 5 years, the New York Times reported.

“It’s obviously disappointing,” Anthony Fauci, MD, former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC, noting that other areas of HIV treatment research are promising. “I don’t think that people should give up on the field of the HIV vaccine.”

No safety issues had been identified with the vaccine during the trial, which studied the experimental treatment in men who have sex with men or with transgender people.

There is no cure for HIV, but disease progression can be managed with existing treatments. HIV attacks the body’s immune system and destroys white blood cells, increasing the risk of other infections. More than 1.5 million people worldwide were infected with HIV in 2021 and 38.4 million people are living with the virus, according to UNAIDS.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older adults increases the risk for developing dementia, new research suggests. Results from a longitudinal study that included more than 5,000 United States–based seniors showed that nearly one-quarter were socially isolated.

After adjusting for demographic and health factors, social isolation was found to be associated with a 28% higher risk for developing dementia over a 9-year period, compared with non-isolation. In addition, this finding held true regardless of race or ethnicity.

“Social connections are increasingly understood as a critical factor for the health of individuals as they age,” senior study author Thomas K.M. Cudjoe, MD, Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Endowed Professor and assistant professor of medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a press release. “Our study expands our understanding of the deleterious impact of social isolation on one’s risk for dementia over time,” Dr. Cudjoe added.

The findings were published online  in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.
 

Upstream resources, downstream outcomes

Social isolation is a “multidimensional construct” characterized by factors such as social connections, social support, resource sharing, and relationship strain. It also affects approximately a quarter of older adults, the investigators noted.

Although prior studies have pointed to an association between socially isolated older adults and increased risk for incident dementia, no study has described this longitudinal association in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. seniors. 

Dr. Cudjoe said he was motivated to conduct the current study because he wondered whether or not older adults throughout the United States were similar to some of his patients “who might be at risk for worse cognitive outcomes because they lacked social contact with friends, family, or neighbors.”

The study was also “informed by conceptual foundation that upstream social and personal resources are linked to downstream health outcomes, including cognitive health and function,” the researchers added.

They turned to 2011-2020 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. The sample was drawn from the Medicare enrollment file and incorporated 95 counties and 655 zip codes.

Participants (n = 5,022; mean age, 76.4 years; 57.2% women; 71.7% White, non-Hispanic; 42.4% having more than a college education) were community-dwelling older adults who completed annual 2-hour interviews that included assessment of function, economic health status, and well-being. To be included, they had to attend at least the baseline and first follow-up visits.

NHATS “includes domains that are relevant for the characterization of social isolation,” the investigators wrote. It used a typology of structural social isolation that is informed by the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index.

Included domains were living arrangements, discussion networks, and participation. All are “clinically relevant, practical, and components of a comprehensive social history,” the researchers noted.

They added that individuals classified as “socially isolated” often live alone, have no one or only one person that they can rely upon to discuss important matters, and have limited or no engagement in social or religious groups.

Social isolation in the study was characterized using questions about living with at least one other person, talking to two or more other people about “important matters” in the past year, attending religious services in the past month, and participating in the past month in such things as clubs, meetings, group activities, or volunteer work.
 

Wake-up call

Study participants received 1 point for each item/domain, with a sum score of 0 or 1 classified as “socially isolated” and 2 or more points considered “not socially isolated.” They were classified as having probable dementia based either on self-report or lower-than-mean performance in 2 or more cognitive domains, or a score indicating probable dementia on the AD8 Dementia Screening Interview.

Covariates included demographic factors, education, and health factors. Mean follow-up was 5.1 years.

Results showed close to one-quarter (23.3%) of the study population was classified as socially isolated, with one-fifth (21.1%) developing dementia by the end of the follow-up period.

Compared with non-isolated older adults, those who were socially isolated were more likely to develop dementia during the follow-up period (19.6% vs. 25.9%, respectively).

After adjusting for demographic factors, social isolation was significantly associated with a higher risk for incident dementia (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). This association persisted after further adjustment for health factors (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49). Race and ethnicity had no bearing on the association.

In addition to the association between social isolation and dementia, the researchers also estimated the cause-specific hazard of death before dementia and found that, overall, 18% of participants died prior to dementia over the follow-up period. In particular, the social isolation–associated cause-specific HR of death before dementia was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

Dr. Cudjoe noted that the mechanism behind the association between social isolation and dementia in this population needs further study. Still, he hopes that the findings will “serve as a wake-up call for all of us to be more thoughtful of the role of social connections on our cognitive health.”

Clinicians “should be thinking about and assessing the presence or absence of social connections in their patients,” Dr. Cudjoe added.
 

‘Instrumental role’

Commenting on the study, Nicole Purcell, DO, neurologist and senior director of clinical practice at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “contributes to the growing body of evidence that finds social isolation is a serious public health risk for many seniors living in the United States, increasing their risk for dementia and other serious mental conditions.”

Dr. Purcell, who was not involved with the study, added that “health care systems and medical professionals can play an instrumental role in identifying individuals at risk for social isolation.”

She noted that for those experiencing social isolation, “interaction with health care providers may be one of the few opportunities those individuals have for social engagement, [so] using these interactions to identify individuals at risk for social isolation and referring them to local resources and groups that promote engagement, well-being, and access to senior services may help decrease dementia risk for vulnerable seniors.”

Dr. Purcell added that the Alzheimer’s Association offers early-stage programs throughout the country, including support groups, education, art, music, and other socially engaging activities.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and Secunda Family Foundation. The investigators and Dr. Purcell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

A new study provides strong supportive evidence that adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to psychotherapy can significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

The MAPP2 study is the second randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD.

The investigators confirm results of the MAPP1 study, which were published in Nature Medicine. Patients who received MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in MAPP1 demonstrated greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy, compared with participants who received psychotherapy with placebo.

The design of the MAPP2 study was similar to that of MAPP1, and its results were similar, the nonprofit Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which sponsored MAPP1 and MAPP2, said in a news release.

No specific results from MAPP2 were provided at this time. The full data from MAPP2 are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal later this year, and a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will follow.

The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation to MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy for adults with PTSD in 2017.

MAPS was founded in 1986 to fund and facilitate research into the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies; to educate the public about psychedelics for medical, social, and spiritual use; and to advocate for drug policy reform.

“When I first articulated a plan to legitimize a psychedelic-assisted therapy through FDA approval, many people said it was impossible,” Rick Doblin, PhD, founder and executive director of MAPS, said in the news release.

“Thirty-seven years later, we are on the precipice of bringing a novel therapy to the millions of Americans living with PTSD who haven’t found relief through current treatments,” said Dr. Doblin.

“The impossible became possible through the bravery of clinical trial participants, the compassion of mental health practitioners, and the generosity of thousands of donors. Today, we can imagine that MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD may soon be available and accessible to all who could benefit,” Dr. Doblin added.

According to MAPS, phase 2 trials are being planned or conducted regarding the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapies for substance use disorder and eating disorders, as well as couples therapy and group therapy among veterans.

Currently, no psychedelic-assisted therapy has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

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

In a new retrospective analysis of patients with above-average risk of colorectal cancer, multiple negative fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) were associated with a lower risk of advanced neoplasia. The findings suggest that multiple negative FITs could potentially identify individuals in high-risk surveillance who aren’t truly high risk, which could in turn ease the logjam of colonoscopies and free resources for truly high-risk individuals.

The study, conducted in Australia, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It included patients who completed at least two FIT exams between surveillance colonoscopies and had no neoplasia or nonadvanced adenoma at prior colonoscopy. Above-average risk was defined as a family history or by findings at surveillance colonoscopy.

The study has some limitations. It is a retrospective analysis between the years 2008 and 2019, and colonoscopy guidelines in the United States have since changed, with a recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy at 7-10 years following 1-2 adenomas discovered at surveillance colonoscopy, and the current study includes follow-up colonoscopy at 5 years. “These data are informative for patients up to 5 years, but they’re not really informative afterwards. They just don’t have those data yet,” said Reed Ness, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The authors also don’t describe what they mean by a family history of colorectal cancer risk. “My take was that it’s an interesting result which would seem to support the possibility of returning some patients with a family history or adenoma history to a noncolonoscopy screening regimen after a negative surveillance colonoscopy. We’ll need to see where the data lead us in the future,” said Dr. Ness, who is an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“We’re letting people go 10 years now, and some people are uncomfortable with allowing patients to go 10 years. So you could think of a scenario where you use FIT to try to find people that might have higher-risk lesions that need to come back for colonoscopy within that 10 years,” said Dr. Ness. That issue is particularly relevant given the wide range of adenoma detection rates among gastroenterologists, because FIT could detect a polyp that was missed during a colonoscopy.

The study included two groups with increased risk – those with a family history of colon cancer, and those with previously detected adenomas. The family history cohort may be useful for clinical practice, according to Priyanka Kanth, MD, who was also asked to comment on the study. “Some people may not need [a colonoscopy] at 5 years if they have no polyps found and negative FIT,” said Dr. Kanth, who is an associate professor of gastroenterology at Georgetown University, Washington.

She feels less certain about the group with previously detected adenomas, given the change in U.S. guidelines. “We have already changed that, so I don’t think we need to really do FIT intervals for that cohort,” said Dr. Kanth. “I think this is a good study that has a lot of information and also reassures us that we don’t need such frequent colonoscopy surveillance,” she added.

Steve Serrao, MD, PhD, who was also asked for comment, emphasized the importance of high-quality colonoscopies that reach the cecum 95% of the time, and achieving high adenoma-detection rates. The system can get overwhelmed conducting colonoscopies on patients with good insurance coverage who have already undergone high-quality colonoscopies. “That pushes out patients that haven’t necessarily had a colonoscopy or a FIT. People who don’t have access are kind of crowded out by these false-positive tests. The best modality is actually to do a high-quality colonoscopy and then to have a really well-directed strategy following that colonoscopy,” said Dr. Serrao, who is division chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Riverside University Health System, Moreno Valley, Calif.

The researchers analyzed data from 4,021 surveillance intervals and 3,369 participants. A total of 1,436 had no neoplasia at the prior colonoscopy, 1,704 had nonadvanced adenoma, and 880 had advanced adenoma. Participants completed no or one to four FIT tests between colonoscopies, with the final colonoscopy performed within 2 years of FIT tests. The median age was 63.9 years; 53.6% were female; 71.1% had a prior adenoma; and 28.9% had a family history of colorectal cancer. A total of 29.4% of participants had one negative FIT; 6.9% had four negative FITs during the interval period; and 31.0% did not complete any FIT tests.

Of follow-up colonoscopies, 9.9% revealed advanced adenomas. Among the patients with no prior neoplasia, those with one negative FIT had a cumulative index function for advanced neoplasia at 5 years of 8.5% (95% confidence interval, 4.9%-13.3%). This was higher than for those with three negative FITs (4.5%; 95% CI, 2.0%-8.6%) or four negative FITs (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.5%-5.0%). The association held for individuals with prior nonadvanced adenoma but not those with advanced adenoma.

Over the 5-year interval, three or more negative FIT tests were associated with a 50%-70% reduction in advanced neoplasia risk at follow-up colonoscopy (P < .001). There was no significant association over a 3-year interval. Dr. Kanth, Dr. Serrao, and Dr. Ness have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

In a new retrospective analysis of patients with above-average risk of colorectal cancer, multiple negative fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) were associated with a lower risk of advanced neoplasia. The findings suggest that multiple negative FITs could potentially identify individuals in high-risk surveillance who aren’t truly high risk, which could in turn ease the logjam of colonoscopies and free resources for truly high-risk individuals.

The study, conducted in Australia, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It included patients who completed at least two FIT exams between surveillance colonoscopies and had no neoplasia or nonadvanced adenoma at prior colonoscopy. Above-average risk was defined as a family history or by findings at surveillance colonoscopy.

The study has some limitations. It is a retrospective analysis between the years 2008 and 2019, and colonoscopy guidelines in the United States have since changed, with a recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy at 7-10 years following 1-2 adenomas discovered at surveillance colonoscopy, and the current study includes follow-up colonoscopy at 5 years. “These data are informative for patients up to 5 years, but they’re not really informative afterwards. They just don’t have those data yet,” said Reed Ness, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The authors also don’t describe what they mean by a family history of colorectal cancer risk. “My take was that it’s an interesting result which would seem to support the possibility of returning some patients with a family history or adenoma history to a noncolonoscopy screening regimen after a negative surveillance colonoscopy. We’ll need to see where the data lead us in the future,” said Dr. Ness, who is an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“We’re letting people go 10 years now, and some people are uncomfortable with allowing patients to go 10 years. So you could think of a scenario where you use FIT to try to find people that might have higher-risk lesions that need to come back for colonoscopy within that 10 years,” said Dr. Ness. That issue is particularly relevant given the wide range of adenoma detection rates among gastroenterologists, because FIT could detect a polyp that was missed during a colonoscopy.

The study included two groups with increased risk – those with a family history of colon cancer, and those with previously detected adenomas. The family history cohort may be useful for clinical practice, according to Priyanka Kanth, MD, who was also asked to comment on the study. “Some people may not need [a colonoscopy] at 5 years if they have no polyps found and negative FIT,” said Dr. Kanth, who is an associate professor of gastroenterology at Georgetown University, Washington.

She feels less certain about the group with previously detected adenomas, given the change in U.S. guidelines. “We have already changed that, so I don’t think we need to really do FIT intervals for that cohort,” said Dr. Kanth. “I think this is a good study that has a lot of information and also reassures us that we don’t need such frequent colonoscopy surveillance,” she added.

Steve Serrao, MD, PhD, who was also asked for comment, emphasized the importance of high-quality colonoscopies that reach the cecum 95% of the time, and achieving high adenoma-detection rates. The system can get overwhelmed conducting colonoscopies on patients with good insurance coverage who have already undergone high-quality colonoscopies. “That pushes out patients that haven’t necessarily had a colonoscopy or a FIT. People who don’t have access are kind of crowded out by these false-positive tests. The best modality is actually to do a high-quality colonoscopy and then to have a really well-directed strategy following that colonoscopy,” said Dr. Serrao, who is division chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Riverside University Health System, Moreno Valley, Calif.

The researchers analyzed data from 4,021 surveillance intervals and 3,369 participants. A total of 1,436 had no neoplasia at the prior colonoscopy, 1,704 had nonadvanced adenoma, and 880 had advanced adenoma. Participants completed no or one to four FIT tests between colonoscopies, with the final colonoscopy performed within 2 years of FIT tests. The median age was 63.9 years; 53.6% were female; 71.1% had a prior adenoma; and 28.9% had a family history of colorectal cancer. A total of 29.4% of participants had one negative FIT; 6.9% had four negative FITs during the interval period; and 31.0% did not complete any FIT tests.

Of follow-up colonoscopies, 9.9% revealed advanced adenomas. Among the patients with no prior neoplasia, those with one negative FIT had a cumulative index function for advanced neoplasia at 5 years of 8.5% (95% confidence interval, 4.9%-13.3%). This was higher than for those with three negative FITs (4.5%; 95% CI, 2.0%-8.6%) or four negative FITs (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.5%-5.0%). The association held for individuals with prior nonadvanced adenoma but not those with advanced adenoma.

Over the 5-year interval, three or more negative FIT tests were associated with a 50%-70% reduction in advanced neoplasia risk at follow-up colonoscopy (P < .001). There was no significant association over a 3-year interval. Dr. Kanth, Dr. Serrao, and Dr. Ness have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

In a new retrospective analysis of patients with above-average risk of colorectal cancer, multiple negative fecal immunohistochemical tests (FITs) were associated with a lower risk of advanced neoplasia. The findings suggest that multiple negative FITs could potentially identify individuals in high-risk surveillance who aren’t truly high risk, which could in turn ease the logjam of colonoscopies and free resources for truly high-risk individuals.

The study, conducted in Australia, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. It included patients who completed at least two FIT exams between surveillance colonoscopies and had no neoplasia or nonadvanced adenoma at prior colonoscopy. Above-average risk was defined as a family history or by findings at surveillance colonoscopy.

The study has some limitations. It is a retrospective analysis between the years 2008 and 2019, and colonoscopy guidelines in the United States have since changed, with a recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy at 7-10 years following 1-2 adenomas discovered at surveillance colonoscopy, and the current study includes follow-up colonoscopy at 5 years. “These data are informative for patients up to 5 years, but they’re not really informative afterwards. They just don’t have those data yet,” said Reed Ness, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

The authors also don’t describe what they mean by a family history of colorectal cancer risk. “My take was that it’s an interesting result which would seem to support the possibility of returning some patients with a family history or adenoma history to a noncolonoscopy screening regimen after a negative surveillance colonoscopy. We’ll need to see where the data lead us in the future,” said Dr. Ness, who is an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“We’re letting people go 10 years now, and some people are uncomfortable with allowing patients to go 10 years. So you could think of a scenario where you use FIT to try to find people that might have higher-risk lesions that need to come back for colonoscopy within that 10 years,” said Dr. Ness. That issue is particularly relevant given the wide range of adenoma detection rates among gastroenterologists, because FIT could detect a polyp that was missed during a colonoscopy.

The study included two groups with increased risk – those with a family history of colon cancer, and those with previously detected adenomas. The family history cohort may be useful for clinical practice, according to Priyanka Kanth, MD, who was also asked to comment on the study. “Some people may not need [a colonoscopy] at 5 years if they have no polyps found and negative FIT,” said Dr. Kanth, who is an associate professor of gastroenterology at Georgetown University, Washington.

She feels less certain about the group with previously detected adenomas, given the change in U.S. guidelines. “We have already changed that, so I don’t think we need to really do FIT intervals for that cohort,” said Dr. Kanth. “I think this is a good study that has a lot of information and also reassures us that we don’t need such frequent colonoscopy surveillance,” she added.

Steve Serrao, MD, PhD, who was also asked for comment, emphasized the importance of high-quality colonoscopies that reach the cecum 95% of the time, and achieving high adenoma-detection rates. The system can get overwhelmed conducting colonoscopies on patients with good insurance coverage who have already undergone high-quality colonoscopies. “That pushes out patients that haven’t necessarily had a colonoscopy or a FIT. People who don’t have access are kind of crowded out by these false-positive tests. The best modality is actually to do a high-quality colonoscopy and then to have a really well-directed strategy following that colonoscopy,” said Dr. Serrao, who is division chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Riverside University Health System, Moreno Valley, Calif.

The researchers analyzed data from 4,021 surveillance intervals and 3,369 participants. A total of 1,436 had no neoplasia at the prior colonoscopy, 1,704 had nonadvanced adenoma, and 880 had advanced adenoma. Participants completed no or one to four FIT tests between colonoscopies, with the final colonoscopy performed within 2 years of FIT tests. The median age was 63.9 years; 53.6% were female; 71.1% had a prior adenoma; and 28.9% had a family history of colorectal cancer. A total of 29.4% of participants had one negative FIT; 6.9% had four negative FITs during the interval period; and 31.0% did not complete any FIT tests.

Of follow-up colonoscopies, 9.9% revealed advanced adenomas. Among the patients with no prior neoplasia, those with one negative FIT had a cumulative index function for advanced neoplasia at 5 years of 8.5% (95% confidence interval, 4.9%-13.3%). This was higher than for those with three negative FITs (4.5%; 95% CI, 2.0%-8.6%) or four negative FITs (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.5%-5.0%). The association held for individuals with prior nonadvanced adenoma but not those with advanced adenoma.

Over the 5-year interval, three or more negative FIT tests were associated with a 50%-70% reduction in advanced neoplasia risk at follow-up colonoscopy (P < .001). There was no significant association over a 3-year interval. Dr. Kanth, Dr. Serrao, and Dr. Ness have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study likely makes the best estimate yet of the degree of retinopathy risk that patients who take the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) can expect, deriving mainly from the cumulative dose taken during the first 5 years of use, according to a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

HCQ works to decrease activity in a patient’s immune system, which is effective in many cases of systemic lupus erythematosus, one of the most common indications for the drug. However, an adverse outcome of treatment can be HCQ retinopathy, a progressive form of vision loss in patients taking HCQ over an extended period (mostly for longer than 5 years). The disease is often asymptomatic, although some patients do present a paracentral scotoma and a decrease in color vision. Patients may also notice flashing shapes in their vision and find that they have difficulty reading. Eventually, HCQ retinopathy can lead to loss of visual acuity, loss of peripheral vision, and loss of night vision.

Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Harvard Medical School analyzed 3,325 persons who received HCQ for 5 or more years between 2004 and 2020. Their goal was to both characterize the long-term risk for incident HCQ retinopathy and examine the degree to which average HCQ dose within the first 5 years of treatment serves as a prediction of the risk.

The researchers then estimated the risk for developing retinopathy after 15 years, according to patients’ average dosing levels during the first 5 years of therapy. Overall, 81 participants developed HCQ retinopathy with overall cumulative incidences of 2.5% after 10 years and 8.6% after 15 years; the risk was greater for those given a higher dose during the first 5 years of treatment.

The mechanism of how HCQ toxicity may occur is still not completely known. There is evidence that toxicity happens because HCQ binds to melanin in both the retinal pigment epithelium and uvea in high concentrations. HCQ can interfere with lysosomal function, leading to oxidation and accumulation of lysosomes, which can cause dysfunction of the retinal pigment epithelium.

Progressive retinopathy can continue even after the drug is stopped. “It’s thought to be a very mild but important risk,” said Nilanjana Bose, MD, MBA, a rheumatologist with Memorial Hermann Health System in Houston. “Patients taking HCQ must be screened for retinal issues, most certainly elderly patients and patients with any kind of comorbidities.”

“Examination alone is not sufficient to evaluate early changes, and specialized testing must be done. These include color photos, visual field tests, optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence and in some cases, multifocal electroretinogram. Also, the AAO [American Academy of Ophthalmology] has specific recommendations related to Asian patients as they may have a different pattern of retinopathy that must also be considered.”
 

More accurate risk measurements

This news organization asked study coauthor April Jorge, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, to discuss the study, how it correlates to past research, and what it adds that’s new and useful to rheumatologists and ophthalmologists:

Question: Your research found that a higher dose of HCQ in the first 5 years of treatment led to a greater risk of retinopathy. Is there any indication that a lower dose given more frequently, either within that 5-year period or longer, would pose a similar risk?

Answer: In our study, we assessed the HCQ dose in the first 5 years of use but followed patients who continued the medication longer than 5 years, through up to 15 years of use. Therefore, we compared the risk of HCQ retinopathy associated with different HCQ dosages but for the same duration of use. We found that for any dose of HCQ, the risk of retinopathy increases the longer the medication is used. However, patients who used a higher dose of HCQ had a higher risk of developing retinopathy over time.

Also unique to our study, we graded the severity of HCQ retinopathy outcomes. This was important, as we found that the majority of retinopathy cases detected through routine screening are mild and presumed to be asymptomatic. This will likely be reassuring news for patients that we can screen for this adverse event to detect it early and prevent vision loss.

Another important difference was that we assessed the risk of retinopathy associated with using over 6 mg/kg per day, between 5 and 6 mg/kg per day, and less than 5 mg/kg per day, whereas the highest dosing group assessed in the 2014 study included all patients using over 5 mg/kg per day. The risk was considerably higher in the > 6 mg/kg per day group than in the 5-6 mg/kg per day group.

Q: How can rheumatologists and ophthalmologists use this new information specifically to better treat their patients?

A: Our study provides more accurate estimates of the risk of HCQ retinopathy than in prior studies. These risk estimates can be used when rheumatologists (and other clinicians who prescribe HCQ) consider the risks and benefits of this otherwise important and well-tolerated medication. The risk associated with different dose ranges could also inform dosing decisions, since dosing over 6 mg/kg per day may be more of a concern than using doses in the 5-6 mg/kg range. Ophthalmologists can also use these new risk estimates to counsel patients of the importance of HCQ retinopathy screening and can also hopefully provide some reassurance to patients that the risk of severe retinopathy is low as long as they are being monitored.

The study authors were supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bose and Dr. Mirza had no relevant disclosures.