Clinical Endocrinology News

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The human monoclonal antibody golimumab (Simponi) preserved endogenous insulin secretion in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes and reduced their exogenous insulin requirements at 1 year, newly published phase 2 data indicate.

Results from the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were first reported as a poster at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions in June. They were published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the 52-week study of 84 children and adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, those given golimumab injections every 2 weeks had significantly higher levels of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion, and required less injected or infused insulin than did those who received placebo injections. There were no treatment-associated serious adverse events.

Golimumab is a human monoclonal antibody specific for tumor necrosis factor–alpha. It is approved for the treatment of several autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis, in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.
 

An intermediate step toward a cure

Although none of the patients were able to stop taking insulin entirely, the results have important clinical implications, lead author Teresa Quattrin, MD, said in an interview.

“People want a cure, but the fact is, a cure is not available yet. So, this is an intermediate step towards a cure.... There are advantages to being on a small insulin dose,” including lower rates of hypoglycemia and maintenance of intraportal insulin, said Dr. Quattrin, of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

But in an accompanying editorial, Domenico Accili, MD, points to potential risks from immunotherapy and from attempting additional interventions at an “emotionally fraught” time when patients and families are coping with the new diabetes diagnosis.

He said of golimumab, “the effect is actually very small. ... There’s nothing wrong in and of itself with improving those outcomes. I just wouldn’t assign them as game changers.”

If this or a similar immunotherapeutic intervention were approved for this indication, “I would tell patients it exists and let them make the decision whether they want to try it. I wouldn’t say you must try it,” said Dr. Accili, of the Columbia University Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center, New York.
 

With golimumab, higher C-peptide, lower insulin requirement

Of the 84 patients, who ranged in age from 6 to 21 years, 56 were randomly assigned within 100 days of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes to receive golimumab, and 28 were assigned to receive placebo injections, given every 2 weeks.

The drug resulted in lower insulin use (0.51U/Kg per day vs. 0.69 U/kg per day), and the increase in insulin use over 52 weeks was less with golimumab than with placebo (0.07 vs. 0.24 U/kg per day; P = .001).

The mean percent decrease of C-peptide production from baseline was 12% with golimumab versus 56% with placebo.

Although the mean number of overall hypoglycemic events was similar, the mean number of level 2 hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) was 36% lower with golimumab (11.5 vs. 17.6). There were no severe cases of hypoglycemia in either group.

No severe or serious infections occurred in either group, although mild to moderate infections were reported in 71% with golimumab versus 61% with placebo. More patients in the golimumab group experienced a decrease in neutrophils (29% vs. 19%).
 

Immunotherapy: Which one, and when should it start?

These findings come on the heels of the 2019 landmark results with another monoclonal antibody, the investigational anti-CD3 teplizumab (PRV-031). Among patients at risk, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was delayed by 2 years, and continued benefit was seen at 3 years.

However, Dr. Quattrin said teplizumab is limited by the fact that it must be administered via a 14-day infusion, whereas golimumab can be injected by patients themselves at home.

Moreover, the phase 2 teplizumab study was conducted in people who had antibodies that placed them at high risk for type 1 diabetes, but those patients did not yet have the condition. They were identified because they had close relatives with type 1 diabetes and were enrolled in the federally funded TrialNet screening program.

Dr. Quattrin is now participating in an ongoing phase 3 study of teplizumab that involves patients newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

A Janssen spokesperson said in an interview that the company isn’t planning to further develop golimumab for use in type 1 diabetes.

“Our focus is to apply insights from the phase 2 ... proof-of-concept study to progress what we believe are novel, immunologically targeted pipeline candidates in stage 2 disease or presymptomatic stages of type 1 diabetes, which is consistent with our mission to intercept and prevent type 1 diabetes,” the spokesperson said.

To identify more individuals at risk for type 1 diabetes beyond the close relatives of those who already have it, so as to be able to intervene at a presymptomatic stage, Janssen is organizing a public-private effort to advocate for routine population screening for type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies.

Dr. Quattrin said: “Preserving some insulin is key. Having somebody with beta cell functioning still is an intermediate step to a cure and will make their life easier, and that’s what people should care about.”

Dr. Accili, who cofounded and leads a company working on a novel approach to type 1 diabetes treatment, writes in his editorial: “We should also be mindful that this treatment debate is first world–centric.

“Current treatments for type 1 diabetes require resources not readily available in most parts of the world, where something as simple as refrigeration of insulin can become a logistic nightmare. While combinations of [approaches] tailored to individual risk and potential benefits are likely to make inroads in clinical practice, the need for a simpler, safer, and equally effective alternative to insulin remains,” he wrote.

Dr. Quattrin is a researcher and consultant for Janssen and conducts clinical trials for Provention Bio, Opko, and Ascendis. Dr. Accili is founder and director of Forkhead Therapeutics.

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

The human monoclonal antibody golimumab (Simponi) preserved endogenous insulin secretion in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes and reduced their exogenous insulin requirements at 1 year, newly published phase 2 data indicate.

Results from the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were first reported as a poster at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions in June. They were published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the 52-week study of 84 children and adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, those given golimumab injections every 2 weeks had significantly higher levels of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion, and required less injected or infused insulin than did those who received placebo injections. There were no treatment-associated serious adverse events.

Golimumab is a human monoclonal antibody specific for tumor necrosis factor–alpha. It is approved for the treatment of several autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis, in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.
 

An intermediate step toward a cure

Although none of the patients were able to stop taking insulin entirely, the results have important clinical implications, lead author Teresa Quattrin, MD, said in an interview.

“People want a cure, but the fact is, a cure is not available yet. So, this is an intermediate step towards a cure.... There are advantages to being on a small insulin dose,” including lower rates of hypoglycemia and maintenance of intraportal insulin, said Dr. Quattrin, of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

But in an accompanying editorial, Domenico Accili, MD, points to potential risks from immunotherapy and from attempting additional interventions at an “emotionally fraught” time when patients and families are coping with the new diabetes diagnosis.

He said of golimumab, “the effect is actually very small. ... There’s nothing wrong in and of itself with improving those outcomes. I just wouldn’t assign them as game changers.”

If this or a similar immunotherapeutic intervention were approved for this indication, “I would tell patients it exists and let them make the decision whether they want to try it. I wouldn’t say you must try it,” said Dr. Accili, of the Columbia University Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center, New York.
 

With golimumab, higher C-peptide, lower insulin requirement

Of the 84 patients, who ranged in age from 6 to 21 years, 56 were randomly assigned within 100 days of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes to receive golimumab, and 28 were assigned to receive placebo injections, given every 2 weeks.

The drug resulted in lower insulin use (0.51U/Kg per day vs. 0.69 U/kg per day), and the increase in insulin use over 52 weeks was less with golimumab than with placebo (0.07 vs. 0.24 U/kg per day; P = .001).

The mean percent decrease of C-peptide production from baseline was 12% with golimumab versus 56% with placebo.

Although the mean number of overall hypoglycemic events was similar, the mean number of level 2 hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) was 36% lower with golimumab (11.5 vs. 17.6). There were no severe cases of hypoglycemia in either group.

No severe or serious infections occurred in either group, although mild to moderate infections were reported in 71% with golimumab versus 61% with placebo. More patients in the golimumab group experienced a decrease in neutrophils (29% vs. 19%).
 

Immunotherapy: Which one, and when should it start?

These findings come on the heels of the 2019 landmark results with another monoclonal antibody, the investigational anti-CD3 teplizumab (PRV-031). Among patients at risk, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was delayed by 2 years, and continued benefit was seen at 3 years.

However, Dr. Quattrin said teplizumab is limited by the fact that it must be administered via a 14-day infusion, whereas golimumab can be injected by patients themselves at home.

Moreover, the phase 2 teplizumab study was conducted in people who had antibodies that placed them at high risk for type 1 diabetes, but those patients did not yet have the condition. They were identified because they had close relatives with type 1 diabetes and were enrolled in the federally funded TrialNet screening program.

Dr. Quattrin is now participating in an ongoing phase 3 study of teplizumab that involves patients newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

A Janssen spokesperson said in an interview that the company isn’t planning to further develop golimumab for use in type 1 diabetes.

“Our focus is to apply insights from the phase 2 ... proof-of-concept study to progress what we believe are novel, immunologically targeted pipeline candidates in stage 2 disease or presymptomatic stages of type 1 diabetes, which is consistent with our mission to intercept and prevent type 1 diabetes,” the spokesperson said.

To identify more individuals at risk for type 1 diabetes beyond the close relatives of those who already have it, so as to be able to intervene at a presymptomatic stage, Janssen is organizing a public-private effort to advocate for routine population screening for type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies.

Dr. Quattrin said: “Preserving some insulin is key. Having somebody with beta cell functioning still is an intermediate step to a cure and will make their life easier, and that’s what people should care about.”

Dr. Accili, who cofounded and leads a company working on a novel approach to type 1 diabetes treatment, writes in his editorial: “We should also be mindful that this treatment debate is first world–centric.

“Current treatments for type 1 diabetes require resources not readily available in most parts of the world, where something as simple as refrigeration of insulin can become a logistic nightmare. While combinations of [approaches] tailored to individual risk and potential benefits are likely to make inroads in clinical practice, the need for a simpler, safer, and equally effective alternative to insulin remains,” he wrote.

Dr. Quattrin is a researcher and consultant for Janssen and conducts clinical trials for Provention Bio, Opko, and Ascendis. Dr. Accili is founder and director of Forkhead Therapeutics.

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

The human monoclonal antibody golimumab (Simponi) preserved endogenous insulin secretion in patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes and reduced their exogenous insulin requirements at 1 year, newly published phase 2 data indicate.

Results from the multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were first reported as a poster at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions in June. They were published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the 52-week study of 84 children and adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, those given golimumab injections every 2 weeks had significantly higher levels of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion, and required less injected or infused insulin than did those who received placebo injections. There were no treatment-associated serious adverse events.

Golimumab is a human monoclonal antibody specific for tumor necrosis factor–alpha. It is approved for the treatment of several autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis, in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.
 

An intermediate step toward a cure

Although none of the patients were able to stop taking insulin entirely, the results have important clinical implications, lead author Teresa Quattrin, MD, said in an interview.

“People want a cure, but the fact is, a cure is not available yet. So, this is an intermediate step towards a cure.... There are advantages to being on a small insulin dose,” including lower rates of hypoglycemia and maintenance of intraportal insulin, said Dr. Quattrin, of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

But in an accompanying editorial, Domenico Accili, MD, points to potential risks from immunotherapy and from attempting additional interventions at an “emotionally fraught” time when patients and families are coping with the new diabetes diagnosis.

He said of golimumab, “the effect is actually very small. ... There’s nothing wrong in and of itself with improving those outcomes. I just wouldn’t assign them as game changers.”

If this or a similar immunotherapeutic intervention were approved for this indication, “I would tell patients it exists and let them make the decision whether they want to try it. I wouldn’t say you must try it,” said Dr. Accili, of the Columbia University Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center, New York.
 

With golimumab, higher C-peptide, lower insulin requirement

Of the 84 patients, who ranged in age from 6 to 21 years, 56 were randomly assigned within 100 days of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes to receive golimumab, and 28 were assigned to receive placebo injections, given every 2 weeks.

The drug resulted in lower insulin use (0.51U/Kg per day vs. 0.69 U/kg per day), and the increase in insulin use over 52 weeks was less with golimumab than with placebo (0.07 vs. 0.24 U/kg per day; P = .001).

The mean percent decrease of C-peptide production from baseline was 12% with golimumab versus 56% with placebo.

Although the mean number of overall hypoglycemic events was similar, the mean number of level 2 hypoglycemic events (<54 mg/dL) was 36% lower with golimumab (11.5 vs. 17.6). There were no severe cases of hypoglycemia in either group.

No severe or serious infections occurred in either group, although mild to moderate infections were reported in 71% with golimumab versus 61% with placebo. More patients in the golimumab group experienced a decrease in neutrophils (29% vs. 19%).
 

Immunotherapy: Which one, and when should it start?

These findings come on the heels of the 2019 landmark results with another monoclonal antibody, the investigational anti-CD3 teplizumab (PRV-031). Among patients at risk, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was delayed by 2 years, and continued benefit was seen at 3 years.

However, Dr. Quattrin said teplizumab is limited by the fact that it must be administered via a 14-day infusion, whereas golimumab can be injected by patients themselves at home.

Moreover, the phase 2 teplizumab study was conducted in people who had antibodies that placed them at high risk for type 1 diabetes, but those patients did not yet have the condition. They were identified because they had close relatives with type 1 diabetes and were enrolled in the federally funded TrialNet screening program.

Dr. Quattrin is now participating in an ongoing phase 3 study of teplizumab that involves patients newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.

A Janssen spokesperson said in an interview that the company isn’t planning to further develop golimumab for use in type 1 diabetes.

“Our focus is to apply insights from the phase 2 ... proof-of-concept study to progress what we believe are novel, immunologically targeted pipeline candidates in stage 2 disease or presymptomatic stages of type 1 diabetes, which is consistent with our mission to intercept and prevent type 1 diabetes,” the spokesperson said.

To identify more individuals at risk for type 1 diabetes beyond the close relatives of those who already have it, so as to be able to intervene at a presymptomatic stage, Janssen is organizing a public-private effort to advocate for routine population screening for type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies.

Dr. Quattrin said: “Preserving some insulin is key. Having somebody with beta cell functioning still is an intermediate step to a cure and will make their life easier, and that’s what people should care about.”

Dr. Accili, who cofounded and leads a company working on a novel approach to type 1 diabetes treatment, writes in his editorial: “We should also be mindful that this treatment debate is first world–centric.

“Current treatments for type 1 diabetes require resources not readily available in most parts of the world, where something as simple as refrigeration of insulin can become a logistic nightmare. While combinations of [approaches] tailored to individual risk and potential benefits are likely to make inroads in clinical practice, the need for a simpler, safer, and equally effective alternative to insulin remains,” he wrote.

Dr. Quattrin is a researcher and consultant for Janssen and conducts clinical trials for Provention Bio, Opko, and Ascendis. Dr. Accili is founder and director of Forkhead Therapeutics.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.