Federal Practitioner

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

Despite significant disruptions to the health care system and employment early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the uninsured rate among cancer survivors remained stable in 2020, new research indicates.

In addition, the prevalence of unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and poor sleep habits, appeared to decline among cancer survivors as well as adults who had no history of cancer during this period.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have motivated people to adopt certain healthier behaviors,” Xuesong Han, PhD, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, said in a statement. In addition, policies implemented in response to the pandemic regarding insurance coverage, unemployment benefits, and financial assistance “may have contributed to the observed positive changes.”

Dr. Han and colleagues noted that “to the best of our knowledge, our study provides the first nationally representative estimates of the effects of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors in the United States.”

The study was published online in Cancer.

Given the considerable upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Han and colleagues wanted to explore how cancer survivors, in particular, were affected during the first year.

The analysis included 57,132 cancer survivors and 1,044,585 adults without cancer who were involved in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The researchers found that the unemployment rate in 2020 increased by 43% among cancer survivors and by 57% among adults without a cancer history compared with the previous 2 years.

However, the rate of uninsured cancer survivors aged 18-64 years remained relatively stable in 2020 at 8%, compared with 8.8% in 2017-2019.

Notably, the prevalence of insufficient sleep decreased among cancer survivors (43% to 39%), as did smoking (22% to 19%). Among adults without a history of cancer, there was a decline in insufficient sleep (37% to 34.3%) and smoking (16% to 15%). The prevalence of binge drinking decreased among adults with and those without a history of cancer as well.

Obesity rates, however, increased during the first year of the pandemic among cancer survivors (36.5% to 40%) as well as among those with no cancer history (30.8% to 32.7%). In addition, more adults without a cancer history reported an increase in mental distress in 2020 compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors suggest that some of the positive trends observed could be explained, in part, by increased enrollment in the Affordable Care Act and by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which increased the federal government’s share of Medicaid costs and prevented states from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic.

“These provisions likely compensated for the loss in employer-sponsored insurance,” the authors noted.

But, they added, “as policies related to the public health emergency expire, ongoing monitoring of long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivorship is warranted.”

Dr. Han has received a grant from AstraZeneca outside of the current study.

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

A 53-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department following a primary care office visit with sudden onset right upper quadrant abdominal pain that persisted for 3 weeks, worsening over the last 2 days. The abdominal pain worsened after eating or drinking and mildly improved with omeprazole. Associated symptoms included intermittent fever, night sweats, fatigue, and bloating since onset without vomiting or diarrhea. He reported a “complicated” cholecystectomy at an outside facility 6 months prior and that his “gallbladder was adhered to his duodenum,” though outside records were not available. Additional medical history included diverticulosis with prior flares of diverticulitis but no recent flares or treatments. His home medications included acetaminophen, naproxen, intranasal fluticasone, omeprazole, gabapentin, baclofen, trazodone, and antihistamines. He reported no tobacco or illicit drug use and stated he consumed a 6 pack of beer every 6 weeks.

Initial vital signs in the emergency department demonstrated an afebrile oral temperature with unremarkable blood pressure and pulse. He was alert and oriented and did not appear in significant acute distress. Physical examination of the abdomen demonstrated a nondistended abdomen, normal active bowel sounds in all 4 quadrants, and mild right upper and lower quadrant tenderness to soft and deep palpation with release.

Significant laboratory values included elevated C-reactive protein of 44.1 mg/L and mild leukocytosis of 11.1 K/µL (reference range, 4.00-10.60 K/µL). The basic metabolic panel, liver-associated enzymes, and lipase levels were within normal limits.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?
   

   

Our Diagnosis

Based on the clinical history of postprandial abdominal pain with prior cholecystectomy and leukocytosis, the initial differential diagnosis included peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, or delayed sequela of the cholecystectomy 6 months prior. Although suspicion remained for possible delayed postoperative complications from the cholecystectomy, ultrasound and hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid (HIDA) scan were not pursued based on CT imaging findings. The needle-like hypodensity in the duodenum with surrounding inflammation visualized on CT was concerning for an unidentified penetrating foreign body with a possible retroperitoneal microperforation.

After these imaging findings were relayed from Radiology to the Gastroenterology Service, the patient underwent an upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to further evaluate the duodenum. Inspection revealed mild gastritis and a linear, clear piece of plastic with both ends firmly lodged within the mucosa from the distal duodenal bulb to the second portion of the duodenum; a significant mucosal defect of the bowel wall was visualized after careful extraction of the foreign body (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a small duodenal perforation, which was sealed endoscopically with 2 endoclips. The extracted piece of plastic was examined and determined to be a broken cocktail pick (Figure 3). During discussion with the patient postprocedure, he stated that he ingested several olive martinis (which were served with cocktail picks) approximately 3 weeks prior to presentation and did not recall ingesting the cocktail pick. A repeat abdominal CT following the endoscopy demonstrated no leak or free air from the site of the repaired duodenal perforation (Figure 4). The patient avoided surgery and was permitted to resume a liquid diet prior to discharge.

Discussion

Foreign body ingestion in adults is most commonly unintentional with fish bones being the most common culprit.¹ In unintentional instances of foreign body ingestion, many patients are not aware of the event, with dentures posing a significant well-known risk factor due to lack of palatal sensory feedback.² Most ingested foreign bodies pass uninhibited through the GI tract without complications. However, less than 1% of ingested foreign bodies cause potentially life-threatening GI perforations.³

The risk of GI perforation due to foreign body ingestion is greatest with elongated, sharp objects, such as needles, bones, toothpicks, and cocktail picks. These objects tend to lodge at areas of narrowing or angulation, such as the appendix, ileocecal region, or as in this case, the duodenum.³ Passage of a foreign body through the duodenum is more likely to be inhibited if the object is longer than 6 cm and with a diameter > 2.5 cm.⁴ Signs of duodenal perforation are often subtle compared with jejunal or ileal perforations. Patients are commonly afebrile with normal white blood cell counts and are more likely to have chronic symptoms for > 3 days before the appropriate diagnosis of foreign body ingestion is made.¹ Duodenal perforations may be more stable clinically compared with distal GI perforations in part due to the retroperitoneal location with relatively fewer bacteria present intraluminally. GI perforations may not occur acutely during passage of the foreign body but can present weeks, months, or even years later.⁵ Delayed onset of symptoms may happen when the foreign body becomes lodged and only partially perforates the bowel wall, resulting in a chronic inflammatory process. Other possible complications include fistulization and abscess formation from migrating linear sharp objects through the bowel wall, which is most observed with toothpicks and cocktail picks, specifically.⁵

Foreign bodies identified on plain radiographs commonly include radiopaque objects, such as glass, metallic objects, most animal bones and some fish bones, and some medications. However, radiolucent objects, such as toothpicks and cocktail picks, wood, plastic, most fish bones, and most medicines, often will not appear on radiographs. The diagnosis of ingested foreign body can therefore easily be delayed or overlooked on plain radiographs due to ingestion of radiolucent objects or lack of adequate patient history. A high index of suspicion is needed in such instances. The modality of choice for identifying GI perforation due to ingested foreign objects is CT.⁵ All of these commonly missed materials on radiographs will be visible on CT with variable densities. As an added benefit, CT also may reveal ingested objects not visualized on radiographs and show ancillary signs of perforation, such as extraluminal free air, localized inflammation, and fluid collections or abscess surrounding a segment of thickened bowel.⁵

Most ingested foreign bodies will pass through the GI system and can be managed with careful observation alone. However, upper endoscopy is emergently indicated in 3 scenarios of foreign body ingestion: (1) complete occlusion of the esophagus with salivary pooling due to risk of aspiration; (2) ingestion of batteries due to toxic substances; and (3) ingestion of sharp or pointed foreign bodies due to risk of perforation.⁴ Overall, endoscopic intervention is required in 20% of cases and surgical intervention remains rare at 1%.⁴ In the case of this patient, an emergent upper endoscopy was needed due to suspected duodenal perforation.

Treatment of duodenal perforations due to foreign bodies may involve conservative, surgical, or endoscopic management. Contained, small perforations in a stable patient may be treated conservatively with IV fluids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors as they self-seal with omentum if the foreign body has passed.⁶ Retained duodenal foreign bodies pose a risk of persistent perforation or fistulization and must be removed. Anterior duodenal perforations pose a risk of peritonitis, whereas posterior duodenal perforations, although retroperitoneal and sparing the peritoneal cavity, may result in localized abscess formation necessitating foreign body removal. Endoscopic clipping is a modernized, less invasive way to close GI perforations. Through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) can close luminal defects < 2 cm in size.⁷ Defects > 1 cm may be repaired with combined TTSCs and endoloop or omental patching. Over-the-scope clips can close full thickness defects up to 2 to 3 cm with the advantage of being able to close leaks and fistulas involving inflamed or indurated tissue.⁷

Conclusions

Intestinal perforations related to foreign body ingestion are a rare complication occurring in < 1% of patients. Although most ingested foreign objects will pass through the GI tract, elongated or sharp objects pose a risk for perforation. In many cases, a history of foreign body ingestion is not obtained, and a high index of suspicion is required. Duodenal perforations due to foreign body ingestion should be included in the differential among the more common diagnoses of peptic ulcers, pancreatitis, and gallbladder disease in the setting of postprandial right upper quadrant abdominal pain. CT is the best modality for identifying foreign bodies, including objects that may be missed on plain radiographs.

A 53-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department following a primary care office visit with sudden onset right upper quadrant abdominal pain that persisted for 3 weeks, worsening over the last 2 days. The abdominal pain worsened after eating or drinking and mildly improved with omeprazole. Associated symptoms included intermittent fever, night sweats, fatigue, and bloating since onset without vomiting or diarrhea. He reported a “complicated” cholecystectomy at an outside facility 6 months prior and that his “gallbladder was adhered to his duodenum,” though outside records were not available. Additional medical history included diverticulosis with prior flares of diverticulitis but no recent flares or treatments. His home medications included acetaminophen, naproxen, intranasal fluticasone, omeprazole, gabapentin, baclofen, trazodone, and antihistamines. He reported no tobacco or illicit drug use and stated he consumed a 6 pack of beer every 6 weeks.

Initial vital signs in the emergency department demonstrated an afebrile oral temperature with unremarkable blood pressure and pulse. He was alert and oriented and did not appear in significant acute distress. Physical examination of the abdomen demonstrated a nondistended abdomen, normal active bowel sounds in all 4 quadrants, and mild right upper and lower quadrant tenderness to soft and deep palpation with release.

Significant laboratory values included elevated C-reactive protein of 44.1 mg/L and mild leukocytosis of 11.1 K/µL (reference range, 4.00-10.60 K/µL). The basic metabolic panel, liver-associated enzymes, and lipase levels were within normal limits.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?
   

   

Our Diagnosis

Based on the clinical history of postprandial abdominal pain with prior cholecystectomy and leukocytosis, the initial differential diagnosis included peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, or delayed sequela of the cholecystectomy 6 months prior. Although suspicion remained for possible delayed postoperative complications from the cholecystectomy, ultrasound and hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid (HIDA) scan were not pursued based on CT imaging findings. The needle-like hypodensity in the duodenum with surrounding inflammation visualized on CT was concerning for an unidentified penetrating foreign body with a possible retroperitoneal microperforation.

After these imaging findings were relayed from Radiology to the Gastroenterology Service, the patient underwent an upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to further evaluate the duodenum. Inspection revealed mild gastritis and a linear, clear piece of plastic with both ends firmly lodged within the mucosa from the distal duodenal bulb to the second portion of the duodenum; a significant mucosal defect of the bowel wall was visualized after careful extraction of the foreign body (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a small duodenal perforation, which was sealed endoscopically with 2 endoclips. The extracted piece of plastic was examined and determined to be a broken cocktail pick (Figure 3). During discussion with the patient postprocedure, he stated that he ingested several olive martinis (which were served with cocktail picks) approximately 3 weeks prior to presentation and did not recall ingesting the cocktail pick. A repeat abdominal CT following the endoscopy demonstrated no leak or free air from the site of the repaired duodenal perforation (Figure 4). The patient avoided surgery and was permitted to resume a liquid diet prior to discharge.

Discussion

Foreign body ingestion in adults is most commonly unintentional with fish bones being the most common culprit.¹ In unintentional instances of foreign body ingestion, many patients are not aware of the event, with dentures posing a significant well-known risk factor due to lack of palatal sensory feedback.² Most ingested foreign bodies pass uninhibited through the GI tract without complications. However, less than 1% of ingested foreign bodies cause potentially life-threatening GI perforations.³

The risk of GI perforation due to foreign body ingestion is greatest with elongated, sharp objects, such as needles, bones, toothpicks, and cocktail picks. These objects tend to lodge at areas of narrowing or angulation, such as the appendix, ileocecal region, or as in this case, the duodenum.³ Passage of a foreign body through the duodenum is more likely to be inhibited if the object is longer than 6 cm and with a diameter > 2.5 cm.⁴ Signs of duodenal perforation are often subtle compared with jejunal or ileal perforations. Patients are commonly afebrile with normal white blood cell counts and are more likely to have chronic symptoms for > 3 days before the appropriate diagnosis of foreign body ingestion is made.¹ Duodenal perforations may be more stable clinically compared with distal GI perforations in part due to the retroperitoneal location with relatively fewer bacteria present intraluminally. GI perforations may not occur acutely during passage of the foreign body but can present weeks, months, or even years later.⁵ Delayed onset of symptoms may happen when the foreign body becomes lodged and only partially perforates the bowel wall, resulting in a chronic inflammatory process. Other possible complications include fistulization and abscess formation from migrating linear sharp objects through the bowel wall, which is most observed with toothpicks and cocktail picks, specifically.⁵

Foreign bodies identified on plain radiographs commonly include radiopaque objects, such as glass, metallic objects, most animal bones and some fish bones, and some medications. However, radiolucent objects, such as toothpicks and cocktail picks, wood, plastic, most fish bones, and most medicines, often will not appear on radiographs. The diagnosis of ingested foreign body can therefore easily be delayed or overlooked on plain radiographs due to ingestion of radiolucent objects or lack of adequate patient history. A high index of suspicion is needed in such instances. The modality of choice for identifying GI perforation due to ingested foreign objects is CT.⁵ All of these commonly missed materials on radiographs will be visible on CT with variable densities. As an added benefit, CT also may reveal ingested objects not visualized on radiographs and show ancillary signs of perforation, such as extraluminal free air, localized inflammation, and fluid collections or abscess surrounding a segment of thickened bowel.⁵

Most ingested foreign bodies will pass through the GI system and can be managed with careful observation alone. However, upper endoscopy is emergently indicated in 3 scenarios of foreign body ingestion: (1) complete occlusion of the esophagus with salivary pooling due to risk of aspiration; (2) ingestion of batteries due to toxic substances; and (3) ingestion of sharp or pointed foreign bodies due to risk of perforation.⁴ Overall, endoscopic intervention is required in 20% of cases and surgical intervention remains rare at 1%.⁴ In the case of this patient, an emergent upper endoscopy was needed due to suspected duodenal perforation.

Treatment of duodenal perforations due to foreign bodies may involve conservative, surgical, or endoscopic management. Contained, small perforations in a stable patient may be treated conservatively with IV fluids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors as they self-seal with omentum if the foreign body has passed.⁶ Retained duodenal foreign bodies pose a risk of persistent perforation or fistulization and must be removed. Anterior duodenal perforations pose a risk of peritonitis, whereas posterior duodenal perforations, although retroperitoneal and sparing the peritoneal cavity, may result in localized abscess formation necessitating foreign body removal. Endoscopic clipping is a modernized, less invasive way to close GI perforations. Through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) can close luminal defects < 2 cm in size.⁷ Defects > 1 cm may be repaired with combined TTSCs and endoloop or omental patching. Over-the-scope clips can close full thickness defects up to 2 to 3 cm with the advantage of being able to close leaks and fistulas involving inflamed or indurated tissue.⁷

Conclusions

Intestinal perforations related to foreign body ingestion are a rare complication occurring in < 1% of patients. Although most ingested foreign objects will pass through the GI tract, elongated or sharp objects pose a risk for perforation. In many cases, a history of foreign body ingestion is not obtained, and a high index of suspicion is required. Duodenal perforations due to foreign body ingestion should be included in the differential among the more common diagnoses of peptic ulcers, pancreatitis, and gallbladder disease in the setting of postprandial right upper quadrant abdominal pain. CT is the best modality for identifying foreign bodies, including objects that may be missed on plain radiographs.

A 53-year-old male patient presented to the emergency department following a primary care office visit with sudden onset right upper quadrant abdominal pain that persisted for 3 weeks, worsening over the last 2 days. The abdominal pain worsened after eating or drinking and mildly improved with omeprazole. Associated symptoms included intermittent fever, night sweats, fatigue, and bloating since onset without vomiting or diarrhea. He reported a “complicated” cholecystectomy at an outside facility 6 months prior and that his “gallbladder was adhered to his duodenum,” though outside records were not available. Additional medical history included diverticulosis with prior flares of diverticulitis but no recent flares or treatments. His home medications included acetaminophen, naproxen, intranasal fluticasone, omeprazole, gabapentin, baclofen, trazodone, and antihistamines. He reported no tobacco or illicit drug use and stated he consumed a 6 pack of beer every 6 weeks.

Initial vital signs in the emergency department demonstrated an afebrile oral temperature with unremarkable blood pressure and pulse. He was alert and oriented and did not appear in significant acute distress. Physical examination of the abdomen demonstrated a nondistended abdomen, normal active bowel sounds in all 4 quadrants, and mild right upper and lower quadrant tenderness to soft and deep palpation with release.

Significant laboratory values included elevated C-reactive protein of 44.1 mg/L and mild leukocytosis of 11.1 K/µL (reference range, 4.00-10.60 K/µL). The basic metabolic panel, liver-associated enzymes, and lipase levels were within normal limits.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?
   

   

Our Diagnosis

Based on the clinical history of postprandial abdominal pain with prior cholecystectomy and leukocytosis, the initial differential diagnosis included peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, or delayed sequela of the cholecystectomy 6 months prior. Although suspicion remained for possible delayed postoperative complications from the cholecystectomy, ultrasound and hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid (HIDA) scan were not pursued based on CT imaging findings. The needle-like hypodensity in the duodenum with surrounding inflammation visualized on CT was concerning for an unidentified penetrating foreign body with a possible retroperitoneal microperforation.

After these imaging findings were relayed from Radiology to the Gastroenterology Service, the patient underwent an upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to further evaluate the duodenum. Inspection revealed mild gastritis and a linear, clear piece of plastic with both ends firmly lodged within the mucosa from the distal duodenal bulb to the second portion of the duodenum; a significant mucosal defect of the bowel wall was visualized after careful extraction of the foreign body (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a small duodenal perforation, which was sealed endoscopically with 2 endoclips. The extracted piece of plastic was examined and determined to be a broken cocktail pick (Figure 3). During discussion with the patient postprocedure, he stated that he ingested several olive martinis (which were served with cocktail picks) approximately 3 weeks prior to presentation and did not recall ingesting the cocktail pick. A repeat abdominal CT following the endoscopy demonstrated no leak or free air from the site of the repaired duodenal perforation (Figure 4). The patient avoided surgery and was permitted to resume a liquid diet prior to discharge.

Discussion

Foreign body ingestion in adults is most commonly unintentional with fish bones being the most common culprit.¹ In unintentional instances of foreign body ingestion, many patients are not aware of the event, with dentures posing a significant well-known risk factor due to lack of palatal sensory feedback.² Most ingested foreign bodies pass uninhibited through the GI tract without complications. However, less than 1% of ingested foreign bodies cause potentially life-threatening GI perforations.³

The risk of GI perforation due to foreign body ingestion is greatest with elongated, sharp objects, such as needles, bones, toothpicks, and cocktail picks. These objects tend to lodge at areas of narrowing or angulation, such as the appendix, ileocecal region, or as in this case, the duodenum.³ Passage of a foreign body through the duodenum is more likely to be inhibited if the object is longer than 6 cm and with a diameter > 2.5 cm.⁴ Signs of duodenal perforation are often subtle compared with jejunal or ileal perforations. Patients are commonly afebrile with normal white blood cell counts and are more likely to have chronic symptoms for > 3 days before the appropriate diagnosis of foreign body ingestion is made.¹ Duodenal perforations may be more stable clinically compared with distal GI perforations in part due to the retroperitoneal location with relatively fewer bacteria present intraluminally. GI perforations may not occur acutely during passage of the foreign body but can present weeks, months, or even years later.⁵ Delayed onset of symptoms may happen when the foreign body becomes lodged and only partially perforates the bowel wall, resulting in a chronic inflammatory process. Other possible complications include fistulization and abscess formation from migrating linear sharp objects through the bowel wall, which is most observed with toothpicks and cocktail picks, specifically.⁵

Foreign bodies identified on plain radiographs commonly include radiopaque objects, such as glass, metallic objects, most animal bones and some fish bones, and some medications. However, radiolucent objects, such as toothpicks and cocktail picks, wood, plastic, most fish bones, and most medicines, often will not appear on radiographs. The diagnosis of ingested foreign body can therefore easily be delayed or overlooked on plain radiographs due to ingestion of radiolucent objects or lack of adequate patient history. A high index of suspicion is needed in such instances. The modality of choice for identifying GI perforation due to ingested foreign objects is CT.⁵ All of these commonly missed materials on radiographs will be visible on CT with variable densities. As an added benefit, CT also may reveal ingested objects not visualized on radiographs and show ancillary signs of perforation, such as extraluminal free air, localized inflammation, and fluid collections or abscess surrounding a segment of thickened bowel.⁵

Most ingested foreign bodies will pass through the GI system and can be managed with careful observation alone. However, upper endoscopy is emergently indicated in 3 scenarios of foreign body ingestion: (1) complete occlusion of the esophagus with salivary pooling due to risk of aspiration; (2) ingestion of batteries due to toxic substances; and (3) ingestion of sharp or pointed foreign bodies due to risk of perforation.⁴ Overall, endoscopic intervention is required in 20% of cases and surgical intervention remains rare at 1%.⁴ In the case of this patient, an emergent upper endoscopy was needed due to suspected duodenal perforation.

Treatment of duodenal perforations due to foreign bodies may involve conservative, surgical, or endoscopic management. Contained, small perforations in a stable patient may be treated conservatively with IV fluids, antibiotics, and proton pump inhibitors as they self-seal with omentum if the foreign body has passed.⁶ Retained duodenal foreign bodies pose a risk of persistent perforation or fistulization and must be removed. Anterior duodenal perforations pose a risk of peritonitis, whereas posterior duodenal perforations, although retroperitoneal and sparing the peritoneal cavity, may result in localized abscess formation necessitating foreign body removal. Endoscopic clipping is a modernized, less invasive way to close GI perforations. Through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) can close luminal defects < 2 cm in size.⁷ Defects > 1 cm may be repaired with combined TTSCs and endoloop or omental patching. Over-the-scope clips can close full thickness defects up to 2 to 3 cm with the advantage of being able to close leaks and fistulas involving inflamed or indurated tissue.⁷

Conclusions

Intestinal perforations related to foreign body ingestion are a rare complication occurring in < 1% of patients. Although most ingested foreign objects will pass through the GI tract, elongated or sharp objects pose a risk for perforation. In many cases, a history of foreign body ingestion is not obtained, and a high index of suspicion is required. Duodenal perforations due to foreign body ingestion should be included in the differential among the more common diagnoses of peptic ulcers, pancreatitis, and gallbladder disease in the setting of postprandial right upper quadrant abdominal pain. CT is the best modality for identifying foreign bodies, including objects that may be missed on plain radiographs.

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psilocybin paired with psychotherapy is associated with a robust and sustained decrease in drinking among adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), new research suggests.

Results from the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial of psilocybin for alcohol dependence showed that during the 8 months after first treatment dose, participants who received psilocybin had less than half as many heavy drinking days as their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, 7 months after the last dose of medication, twice as many psilocybin-treated patients as placebo-treated patients were abstinent.

The effects observed with psilocybin were “considerably larger” than those of currently approved treatments for AUD, senior investigator Michael Bogenschutz, MD, psychiatrist and director of the NYU Langone Center for Psychedelic Medicine, New York, said during an Aug. 24 press briefing.

If the findings hold up in future trials, psilocybin will be a “real breakthrough” in the treatment of the condition, Dr. Bogenschutz said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

83% reduction in drinking days

The study included 93 adults (mean age, 46 years) with alcohol dependence who consumed an average of seven drinks on the days they drank and had had at least four heavy drinking days during the month prior to treatment.

Of the participants, 48 were randomly assigned to receive two doses of psilocybin, and 45 were assigned to receive an antihistamine (diphenhydramine) placebo. Study medication was administered during 2 day-long sessions at week 4 and week 8.

The participants also received 12 psychotherapy sessions over a 12-week period. All were assessed at intervals from the beginning of the study until 32 weeks after the first medication session.

The primary outcome was percentage of days in which the patient drank heavily during the 32-week period following first medication dose. Heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day for a man and four or more drinks in a day for a woman.

The percentage of heavy drinking days during the 32-week period was 9.7% for the psilocybin group and 23.6% for the placebo group, for a mean difference of 13.9% (P = .01).

“Compared to their baseline before the study, after receiving medication, the psilocybin group decreased their heavy drinking days by 83%, while the placebo group reduced their heavy drinking by 51%,” Dr. Bogenschutz reported.

During the last month of follow-up, which was 7 months after the final dose of study medication, 48% of the psilocybin group were entirely abstinent vs. 24% of the placebo group.

“It is remarkable that the effects of psilocybin treatment persisted for 7 months after people received the last dose of medication. This suggests that psilocybin is treating the underlying disorder of alcohol addiction rather than merely treating symptoms,” Dr. Bogenschutz noted.

Total alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol use were also significantly less in the psilocybin group.

‘Encouraged and hopeful’

Adverse events related to psilocybin were mostly mild, self-limiting, and consistent with other recent trials that evaluated the drug’s effects in various conditions.

However, the current investigators note that they implemented measures to ensure safety, including careful medical and psychiatric screening, therapy, and monitoring that was provided by well-trained therapists, including a licensed psychiatrist. In addition, medications were available to treat acute psychiatric reactions.

A cited limitation of the study was that blinding was not maintained because the average intensity of experience with psilocybin was high, whereas it was low with diphenhydramine.

This difference undermined the masking of treatment such that more than 90% of participants and therapists correctly guessed the treatment assignment.

Another limitation was that objective measures to validate self-reported drinking outcomes were available for only 54% of study participants.

Despite these limitations, the study builds on earlier work by the NYU team that showed that two doses of psilocybin taken over a period of 8 weeks significantly reduced alcohol use and cravings in patients with AUD.

“We’re very encouraged by these findings and hopeful about where they could lead. Personally, it’s been very meaningful and rewarding for me to do this work and inspiring to witness the remarkable recoveries that some of our participants have experienced,” Dr. Bogenschutz told briefing attendees.

Urgent need

The authors of an accompanying editorial note that novel medications for alcohol dependence are “sorely needed. Recent renewed interest in the potential of hallucinogens for treating psychiatric disorders, including AUD, represents a potential move in that direction.”

Henry Kranzler, MD, and Emily Hartwell, PhD, both with the Center for Studies of Addiction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, write that the new findings “underscore the potential of developing psilocybin as an addition to the alcohol treatment pharmacopeia.”

They question, however, the feasibility of using hallucinogens in routine clinical practice because intensive psychotherapy, such as that provided in this study, requires a significant investment of time and labor.

“Such concomitant therapy, if necessary to realize the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin for treating AUD, could limit its uptake by clinicians,” Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell write.

The study was funded by the Heffter Research Institute and by individual donations from Carey and Claudia Turnbull, Dr. Efrem Nulman, Rodrigo Niño, and Cody Swift. Dr. Bogenschutz reports having received research funds from and serving as a consultant to Mind Medicine, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, B. More, AJNA Labs, Beckley Psytech, Journey Colab, and Bright Minds Biosciences. Dr. Kranzler and Dr. Hartwell have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A former Kentucky nurse was charged with murder stemming from an incident in which she gave “something special” to a 97-year-old patient who died 5 days later, according to multiple sources, including police and nursing records.

Eyvette Hunter, 52, who had been a registered nurse and previously a licensed practical nurse, was arrested Aug. 23 and charged in connection with the death of James A. Morris, a veteran of World War II and the Korean War, who was being treated at Baptist Health Lexington after a slip-and-fall injury. Ms. Hunter allegedly gave lorazepam, typically used for anxiety, to Mr. Morris on April 30. He subsequently developed pneumonia and died on May 5.

Ms. Hunter “intentionally performed actions of medical maltreatment,” according to the Lexington Police Department’s report.

A Baptist Health Lexington spokeswoman told this news organization that the nurse who was charged hasn’t worked at the hospital since the April incident. “We have learned that a former nurse at our hospital has been arrested yesterday on criminal charges,” spokeswoman Ruth Ann Childers stated. “The hospital has fully cooperated with the police investigation. Patient care and safety are always our top priorities. Out of respect for the patient’s family and because this is criminal matter, we are not able to talk about the investigation.”

According to the Kentucky Board of Nursing, which suspended Ms. Hunter’s RN license on a temporary basis on Aug. 22, she allegedly asked the on-duty physician and a nurse practitioner separately for a medication order to calm Mr. Morris, who had become agitated and aggressive. They denied Ms. Hunter’s request, so she withdrew lorazepam intended for another patient and administered it to Mr. Morris, the nursing board suspension order states. “When asked what was administered, she replied ‘something special,’ “ the order states.

Another RN found the patient with labored breathing and “it was determined that respondent had disarmed/lowered the oxygen monitoring system several times as to not set off an alarm at the bedside,” the order continued. “The RN discussed with charge nurse that the patient had been given something intravenously that was causing his decline.”

When the charge nurse entered the room later, she found the patient in “respiratory distress with labored breathing and poor oxygen saturation. ... X-rays would show that the aspiration from the substances ingested by the patient while in his condition caused the patient to develop aspirational pneumonia,” the order continues.

“Despite the rapidly declining condition of the patient, respondent never called for rapid response nor acted with any sense of urgency. Respondent did however edit documentation of administration of Ativan on ‘patient B’ to state ‘not given.’ ”

Mr. Morris’ condition never improved. He was taken to hospice care on May 3 and died 2 days later, the order states.

Ms. Hunter was being held in the Lexington Jail on $100,000 bond, according to jail records.

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

A former Kentucky nurse was charged with murder stemming from an incident in which she gave “something special” to a 97-year-old patient who died 5 days later, according to multiple sources, including police and nursing records.

Eyvette Hunter, 52, who had been a registered nurse and previously a licensed practical nurse, was arrested Aug. 23 and charged in connection with the death of James A. Morris, a veteran of World War II and the Korean War, who was being treated at Baptist Health Lexington after a slip-and-fall injury. Ms. Hunter allegedly gave lorazepam, typically used for anxiety, to Mr. Morris on April 30. He subsequently developed pneumonia and died on May 5.

Ms. Hunter “intentionally performed actions of medical maltreatment,” according to the Lexington Police Department’s report.

A Baptist Health Lexington spokeswoman told this news organization that the nurse who was charged hasn’t worked at the hospital since the April incident. “We have learned that a former nurse at our hospital has been arrested yesterday on criminal charges,” spokeswoman Ruth Ann Childers stated. “The hospital has fully cooperated with the police investigation. Patient care and safety are always our top priorities. Out of respect for the patient’s family and because this is criminal matter, we are not able to talk about the investigation.”

According to the Kentucky Board of Nursing, which suspended Ms. Hunter’s RN license on a temporary basis on Aug. 22, she allegedly asked the on-duty physician and a nurse practitioner separately for a medication order to calm Mr. Morris, who had become agitated and aggressive. They denied Ms. Hunter’s request, so she withdrew lorazepam intended for another patient and administered it to Mr. Morris, the nursing board suspension order states. “When asked what was administered, she replied ‘something special,’ “ the order states.

Another RN found the patient with labored breathing and “it was determined that respondent had disarmed/lowered the oxygen monitoring system several times as to not set off an alarm at the bedside,” the order continued. “The RN discussed with charge nurse that the patient had been given something intravenously that was causing his decline.”

When the charge nurse entered the room later, she found the patient in “respiratory distress with labored breathing and poor oxygen saturation. ... X-rays would show that the aspiration from the substances ingested by the patient while in his condition caused the patient to develop aspirational pneumonia,” the order continues.

“Despite the rapidly declining condition of the patient, respondent never called for rapid response nor acted with any sense of urgency. Respondent did however edit documentation of administration of Ativan on ‘patient B’ to state ‘not given.’ ”

Mr. Morris’ condition never improved. He was taken to hospice care on May 3 and died 2 days later, the order states.

Ms. Hunter was being held in the Lexington Jail on $100,000 bond, according to jail records.

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

A former Kentucky nurse was charged with murder stemming from an incident in which she gave “something special” to a 97-year-old patient who died 5 days later, according to multiple sources, including police and nursing records.

Eyvette Hunter, 52, who had been a registered nurse and previously a licensed practical nurse, was arrested Aug. 23 and charged in connection with the death of James A. Morris, a veteran of World War II and the Korean War, who was being treated at Baptist Health Lexington after a slip-and-fall injury. Ms. Hunter allegedly gave lorazepam, typically used for anxiety, to Mr. Morris on April 30. He subsequently developed pneumonia and died on May 5.

Ms. Hunter “intentionally performed actions of medical maltreatment,” according to the Lexington Police Department’s report.

A Baptist Health Lexington spokeswoman told this news organization that the nurse who was charged hasn’t worked at the hospital since the April incident. “We have learned that a former nurse at our hospital has been arrested yesterday on criminal charges,” spokeswoman Ruth Ann Childers stated. “The hospital has fully cooperated with the police investigation. Patient care and safety are always our top priorities. Out of respect for the patient’s family and because this is criminal matter, we are not able to talk about the investigation.”

According to the Kentucky Board of Nursing, which suspended Ms. Hunter’s RN license on a temporary basis on Aug. 22, she allegedly asked the on-duty physician and a nurse practitioner separately for a medication order to calm Mr. Morris, who had become agitated and aggressive. They denied Ms. Hunter’s request, so she withdrew lorazepam intended for another patient and administered it to Mr. Morris, the nursing board suspension order states. “When asked what was administered, she replied ‘something special,’ “ the order states.

Another RN found the patient with labored breathing and “it was determined that respondent had disarmed/lowered the oxygen monitoring system several times as to not set off an alarm at the bedside,” the order continued. “The RN discussed with charge nurse that the patient had been given something intravenously that was causing his decline.”

When the charge nurse entered the room later, she found the patient in “respiratory distress with labored breathing and poor oxygen saturation. ... X-rays would show that the aspiration from the substances ingested by the patient while in his condition caused the patient to develop aspirational pneumonia,” the order continues.

“Despite the rapidly declining condition of the patient, respondent never called for rapid response nor acted with any sense of urgency. Respondent did however edit documentation of administration of Ativan on ‘patient B’ to state ‘not given.’ ”

Mr. Morris’ condition never improved. He was taken to hospice care on May 3 and died 2 days later, the order states.

Ms. Hunter was being held in the Lexington Jail on $100,000 bond, according to jail records.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to fedprac@mdedge.com with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to fedprac@mdedge.com with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to fedprac@mdedge.com with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.