Clinical Endocrinology News

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By the time he tested positive for COVID-19 on Jan. 12, Gary Herritz was feeling pretty sick. He suspects he was infected a week earlier, during a medical appointment in which he saw health workers who were wearing masks beneath their noses or who had removed them entirely.

His scratchy throat had turned to a dry cough, headache, joint pain, and fever – all warning signs to Mr. Herritz, who underwent liver transplant surgery in 2012, followed by a rejection scare in 2018. He knew his compromised immune system left him especially vulnerable to a potentially deadly case of COVID.

“The thing with transplant patients is we can crash in a heartbeat,” said Mr. Herritz, 39. “The outcome for transplant patients [with COVID] is not good.”

On Twitter, Mr. Herritz had read about monoclonal antibody therapy, the treatment famously given to President Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians and authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use in high-risk COVID patients. But as his symptoms worsened, Mr. Herritz found himself very much on his own as he scrambled for access.

His primary care doctor wasn’t sure he qualified for treatment. His transplant team in Wisconsin, where he’d had the liver surgery, wasn’t calling back. No one was sure exactly where he should go to get it. From bed in Pascagoula, Miss., he spent 2 days punching in phone numbers, reaching out to health officials in four states, before he finally landed an appointment to receive a treatment aimed at keeping patients like him out of the hospital – and, perhaps, the morgue.

“I am not rich, I am not special, I am not a political figure,” Mr. Herritz, a former community service officer, wrote on Twitter. “I just called until someone would listen.”

Months after Mr. Trump emphatically credited an experimental antibody therapy for his quick recovery from covid and even as drugmakers ramp up supplies, only a trickle of the product has found its way into regular people. While hundreds of thousands of vials sit unused, sick patients who, research indicates, could benefit from early treatment – available for free – have largely been fending for themselves.

Federal officials have allocated more than 785,000 doses of two antibody treatments authorized for emergency use during the pandemic, and more than 550,000 doses have been delivered to sites across the nation. The federal government has contracted for nearly 2.5 million doses of the products from drugmakers Eli Lilly and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at a cost of more than $4.4 billion.

So far, however, only about 30% of the available doses have been administered to patients, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services officials said.

Scores of high-risk COVID patients who are eligible remain unaware or have not been offered the option. Research has shown the therapy is most effective if given early in the illness, within 10 days of a positive COVID test. But many would-be recipients have missed this crucial window because of a patchwork system in the United States that can delay testing and diagnosis.

“The bottleneck here in the funnel is administration, not availability of the product,” said Dr. Janet Woodcock, a veteran FDA official in charge of therapeutics for the federal Operation Warp Speed effort.

Among the daunting hurdles: Until this week, there has been no nationwide system to tell people where they could obtain the drugs, which are delivered through IV infusions that require hours to administer and monitor. Finding space to keep COVID-infected patients separate from others has been difficult in some health centers slammed by the pandemic.

“The health care system is crashing,” Dr. Woodcock told reporters. “What we’ve heard around the country is the No. 1 barrier is staffing.”

At the same time, many hospitals have refused to offer the therapy because doctors were unimpressed with the research federal officials used to justify its use.

Monoclonal antibodies are lab-produced molecules that act as substitutes for the body’s own antibodies that fight infection. The COVID treatments are designed to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes infection from attaching to and entering human cells. Such treatments are usually prohibitively expensive, but for the time being the federal government is footing the bulk of the bill, though patients likely will be charged administrative fees.

Nationwide, nearly 4,000 sites offer the infusion therapies. But for patients and families of people most at risk – those 65 and older or with underlying health conditions – finding the sites and gaining access has been almost impossible, said Brian Nyquist, chief executive officer of the National Infusion Center Association, which is tracking supplies of the antibody products. Like Mr. Herritz, many seeking information about monoclonals find themselves on a lone crusade.

“If they’re not hammering the phones and advocating for access for their loved ones, others often won’t,” he said. “Tenacity is critical.”

Regeneron officials said they’re fielding calls about COVID treatments daily to the company’s medical information line. More than 3,500 people have flooded Eli Lilly’s COVID hotline with questions about access.

As of this week, all states are required to list on a federal locator map sites that have received the monoclonal antibody products, HHS officials said. The updated map shows wide distribution, but a listing doesn’t guarantee availability or access; patients still need to check. It’s best to confer with a primary care provider before reaching out to the centers. For best results, treatment should occur as soon as possible after a positive COVID test.

Some health systems have refused to offer the monoclonal antibody therapies because of doubts about the data used to authorize them. Early studies suggested that Lilly’s therapy, bamlanivimab, reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency treatment in outpatient COVID cases by about 70%, while Regeneron’s antibody cocktail of casirivimab plus imdevimab reduced the need by about 50%.

But those studies were small, just a few hundred subjects, and the results were limited. “A lot of doctors, actually, they’re not impressed with the data,” said Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease expert at Columbia University who cohosts the podcast “This Week in Virology.” “There really is still that question of, ‘Does this stuff really work?’ ”

As more patients are treated, however, there’s growing evidence that the therapies can keep high-risk patients out of the hospital, not only easing their recovery but also decreasing the burden on health systems struggling with record numbers of patients.

Dr. Raymund Razonable, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, said he has treated more than 2,500 COVID patients with monoclonal antibody therapy with promising results. “It’s looking good,” he said, declining to provide details because they’re embargoed for publication. “We are seeing reductions in hospitalizations; we’re seeing reductions in ICU care; we’re also seeing reductions in mortality.”

Banking on observations from Mayo experts and others, federal officials have been pushing for wider use of antibody therapies. HHS officials have partnered with hospitals in three hard-hit states – California, Arizona, and Nevada – to set up infusion centers that are treating dozens of COVID patients each day.

One of those sites went up in late December at El Centro Regional Medical Center in California’s Imperial County, an impoverished farming region on the state’s southern border that has recorded among the highest COVID infection rates in the state. For months, the medical center strained to absorb the overwhelming influx of patients, but chief executive Dr. Adolphe Edward said a new walk-up infusion site has already put a dent in the COVID load.

More than 130 people have been treated, all patients who were able to get the 2-hour infusions and then recuperate at home. “If those folks would not have had the treatment, they would have come through the emergency department and we would have had to admit the lion’s share of them,” he said.

It’s important to make sure people in high-risk groups know to seek out the therapy and to get it early, Dr. Edward said. He and his staff have been working with area doctors’ offices and nonprofit groups and relying on word of mouth.

“On multiple levels, we’re saying, ‘If you’ve tested positive for the virus, come and let us see if you are eligible,’ ” Dr. Edward said.

Greater awareness is a goal of the HHS effort, said Dr. John Redd, chief medical officer for the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “These antibodies are meant for everyone,” he said. “Everyone across the country should have equal access to these products.”

For now, patients like Mr. Herritz, the Mississippi liver transplant recipient, say reality is falling well short of that goal. If he hadn’t continued to call in search of a referral, he wouldn’t have been treated. And without the therapy, Mr. Herritz believes, he was just days away from hospitalization.

“I think it’s horrible that if I didn’t have Twitter, I wouldn’t know anything about this,” he said. “I think about all the people who have died not knowing this was an option for high-risk individuals.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

It’s in the nature of presidential candidates and new presidents to promise big things. Just months after his 1961 inauguration, President John F. Kennedy vowed to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. That pledge was kept, but many others haven’t been, such as candidate Bill Clinton’s promise to provide universal health care and presidential hopeful George H.W. Bush’s guarantee of no new taxes.

Now, during a once-in-a-century pandemic, incoming President Joe Biden has promised to provide 100 million COVID-19 vaccinations in his first 100 days in office.

“This team will help get … at least 100 million covid vaccine shots into the arms of the American people in the first 100 days,” Biden said during a Dec. 8 news conference introducing key members of his health team.

When first asked about his pledge, the Biden team said the president-elect meant 50 million people would get their two-dose regimen. The incoming administration has since updated this plan, saying it will release vaccine doses as soon as they’re available instead of holding back some of that supply for second doses.

Either way, Biden may run into difficulty meeting that 100 million mark.

“I think it’s an attainable goal. I think it’s going to be extremely challenging,” said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

While a pace of 1 million doses a day is “somewhat of an increase over what we’re already doing,” a much higher rate of vaccinations will be necessary to stem the pandemic, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) “The Biden administration has plans to rationalize vaccine distribution, but increasing the supply quickly” could be a difficult task.

Under the Trump administration, vaccine deployment has been much slower than Biden’s plan. The rollout began on Dec. 14. Since then, 12 million shots have been given and 31 million doses have been shipped out, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine tracker.

This sluggishness has been attributed to a lack of communication between the federal government and state and local health departments, not enough funding for large-scale vaccination efforts, and confusing federal guidance on distribution of the vaccines.

The same problems could plague the Biden administration, said experts.

States still aren’t sure how much vaccine they’ll get and whether there will be a sufficient supply, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, which represents state public health agencies.

“We have been given little information about the amount of vaccine the states will receive in the near future and are of the impression that there may not be 1 million doses available per day in the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Dr. Plescia. “Or at least not in the early stages of the 100 days.”

Another challenge has been a lack of funding. Public health departments have had to start vaccination campaigns while also operating testing centers and conducting contact tracing efforts with budgets that have been critically underfunded for years.

“States have to pay for creating the systems, identifying the personnel, training, staffing, tracking people, information campaigns – all the things that go into getting a shot in someone’s arm,” said Jennifer Kates, director of global health & HIV policy at KFF. “They’re having to create an unprecedented mass vaccination program on a shaky foundation.”

The latest covid stimulus bill, signed into law in December, allocates almost $9 billion in funding to the CDC for vaccination efforts. About $4.5 billion is supposed to go to states, territories and tribal organizations, and $3 billion of that is slated to arrive soon.

But it’s not clear that level of funding can sustain mass vaccination campaigns as more groups become eligible for the vaccine.

Biden released a $1.9 trillion plan last week to address covid and the struggling economy. It includes $160 billion to create national vaccination and testing programs, but also earmarks funds for $1,400 stimulus payments to individuals, state and local government aid, extension of unemployment insurance, and financial assistance for schools to reopen safely.

Though it took Congress almost eight months to pass the last covid relief bill after Republican objections to the cost, Biden seems optimistic he’ll get some Republicans on board for his plan. But it’s not yet clear that will work.

There’s also the question of whether outgoing President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will get in the way of Biden’s legislative priorities.

In addition, states have complained about a lack of guidance and confusing instructions on which groups should be given priority status for vaccination, an issue the Biden administration will need to address.

On Dec. 3, the CDC recommended health care personnel, residents of long-term care facilities, those 75 and older, and front-line essential workers should be immunized first. But on Jan. 12, the CDC shifted course and recommended that everyone over age 65 should be immunized. In a speech Biden gave on Jan. 15 detailing his vaccination plan, he said he would stick to the CDC’s recommendation to prioritize those over 65.

Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also said on Jan. 12 that states that moved their vaccine supply fastest would be prioritized in getting more shipments. It’s not known yet whether the Biden administration’s CDC will stick to this guidance. Critics have said it could make vaccine distribution less equitable.

In general, taking over with a strong vision and clear communication will be key to ramping up vaccine distribution, said Ms. Hannan.

“Everyone needs to understand what the goal is and how it’s going to work,” she said.

A challenge for Biden will be tamping expectations that the vaccine is all that is needed to end the pandemic. Across the country, covid cases are higher than ever, and in many locations officials cannot control the spread.

Public health experts said Biden must amp up efforts to increase testing across the country, as he has suggested he will do by promising to establish a national pandemic testing board.

With so much focus on vaccine distribution, it’s important that this part of the equation not be lost. Right now, “it’s completely all over the map,” said KFF’s Ms. Kates, adding that the federal government will need a “good sense” of who is and is not being tested in different areas in order to “fix” public health capacity.

Jan. 20, 2021, marks the launch of The Biden Promise Tracker, which monitors the 100 most important campaign promises of President Joseph R. Biden. Biden listed the coronavirus and a variety of other health-related issues among his top priorities. You can see the entire list – including improving the economy, responding to calls for racial justice and combating climate change – here. As part of KHN’s partnership with PolitiFact, we will follow the health-related issues and then rate them on whether the promise was achieved: Promise Kept, Promise Broken, Compromise, Stalled, In the Works or Not Yet Rated. We rate the promise not on the president’s intentions or effort, but on verifiable outcomes. PolitiFact previously tracked the promises of President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama. 

 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The pandemic has isolated our patients to an unprecedented degree, forcing them to find other ways to communicate with us, including email. I wondered how private offices were handling the marked increase in email communications since the pandemic began; so I queried several physician blogs and social media pages.

Responses varied all over the map. Some refuse the medium entirely. “I politely say that I don’t practice dermatology via email,” said one. “Please schedule a teledermatology appointment and I’d be happy to help.”

Others are ambivalent: “I do email with some patients who have complex situations or quick questions, but if it gets out of hand then I let them know someone will call to make an appointment.” Another office treats them as a one-way street: “We set up one account to receive patients’ emails, but we tell them clearly that we don’t respond ... my staff or I call them back.”

Still others have assimilated it completely. “Patients email through the portal and my MA routes [them] to me. I answer questions and the MA responds ... staff loves it because it’s so much faster than the phone.”

A 1998 study in JAMA was more scientifically designed, but basically reached the same conclusion. The authors found “a striking lack of consensus” on how to deal with patient emails: 50% responded to them, but 31% of responders refused to give advice without seeing the patient, while 59% offered a diagnosis, and a third of that group went on to provide specific advice about therapy. In response to a follow-up questionnaire, 28% said that they tended not to answer any patient emails, 24% said they usually replied with a standard message, and 24% said they answer each request individually. The authors concluded that “standards for physician response to unsolicited patient emails are needed.”

Indeed, my own unscientific survey suggests that, more than 20 years later, there is still nothing resembling a consensus on this issue. In the interim, several groups, including the American Medical Informatics Association and the American Medical Association have proposed standards, but none have been generally accepted. Until that happens, it seems prudent for each individual practice to adopt its own guidelines. For ideas, take a look at the proposals from the groups I mentioned, plus any others you can find. When you’re done, consider running your list past your attorney to make sure you haven’t forgotten anything, and that there are no unique requirements in your state.

Your guidelines may be very simple (if you decide never to answer any queries) or very complex, depending on your situation and personal philosophy. But all guidelines should cover such issues as authentication of correspondents, informed consent, licensing jurisdiction (if you receive emails from states in which you are not licensed), and of course, confidentiality.

Contrary to popular belief, HIPAA does not prohibit email communication with patients, nor require that it be encrypted. The HIPAA website specifically says: “Patients may initiate communications with a provider using email. If this situation occurs, the health care provider can assume (unless the patient has explicitly stated otherwise) that e-mail communications are acceptable to the individual.”

Still, if you are not comfortable with unencrypted communication, encryption software can be added to your practice’s email system. Proofpoint, Tumbleweed, Zix, and many other vendors sell encryption packages. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or enterprise mentioned in this column.)

Another option is web-based messaging: Patients enter your website and send a message using an electronic template that you design. A designated staffer will be notified by regular email when messages are received, and can post a reply on a page that can only be accessed by the patient. Besides enhancing privacy and security, you can state your guidelines in plain English to preclude any misunderstanding of what you will and will not address online.

Web-based messaging services can be freestanding or incorporated into existing secure websites. Medfusion and klara are among the leading vendors of secure messaging services.

The important thing is to make a firm decision on how you want to deal with emails, and stick with that method. And follow your guidelines.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.