MDedge Neurology

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

Apomorphine sublingual film (Kynmobi, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals) was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated for the on-demand treatment of off episodes in Parkinson’s disease, long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study has shown. Besides the usual adverse effects with apomorphine, the sublingual film was associated with more oral adverse effects than seen with the injectable drug. However, it may have some advantages over subcutaneous apomorphine injections in terms of administration during off episodes.

The study was presented at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020.

For example, the new formulation is more convenient than carrying an injection. It comes in a small, tear-open packet that contains a medication strip patients place under their tongues.

“When a patient is in the off state, depending on how off they are, they could have a little difficulty opening the strip [packet], but anyone can open the strip for them,” said lead author Rajesh Pahwa, MD, professor of neurology and chief of the Parkinson and Movement Disorder Division at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. “On the other hand with the subcutaneous, they have to give the injection themselves and a stranger or someone is not going to help them with that.”
 

Open-label safety and efficacy study

The aims of this open-label, 48-week follow-up were to add new patients to assess safety and tolerability over the long term and to see if continued benefit from a previous 12-week double-blind study was still present at 1 year for patients in the earlier study.

This multicenter study (NCT02542696) included “rollover” patients (n = 78 for safety; n = 70 for efficacy) from the previous phase 2/3 double-blind trial, as well as new patients with no prior exposure to apomorphine sublingual film (n = 347 for safety; n = 275 for efficacy).

New patients experienced one or more off episodes per day with a daily off time of 2 hours or more per day while on stable doses of levodopa/carbidopa. All had clinically meaningful responses to levodopa/carbidopa and were judged by the investigator to be Stage 1-3 by modified Hoehn and Yahr scale rating during ON periods.

Rollover patients completed the prior study and had no major changes in their anti-Parkinson’s medications since then. Mouth cankers or sores were exclusion criteria for either group. New subjects could not have received subcutaneous apomorphine within 7 days of a screening visit.

The demographics and baseline characteristics of the new and rollover groups were similar (approximately 64 years; 65%-71% male; 96% White; 8.3-9.6 years since diagnosis; 3.9 to 4.1 off episodes/day, and total mean daily levodopa dose of 1120 to 1478 mg).

Assessing only the group of new patients, the investigators reported that 80% had a Hoehn and Yahr score of 2 or 2.5 when in the ON state and a Movement Disorder Society–Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III predose score of 41.8.

At the beginning of this study, patients in an off period received titrated doses of 10-35 mg of sublingual apomorphine in 5 mg increments during sequential office visits until they achieved a tolerable full ON within 45 minutes of a dose. They then entered a 48-week safety and efficacy phase, during which they self-administered the drug at home up to five times daily for off episodes with a minimum of 2 hours between doses. The investigators could adjust the doses for safety or lack of efficacy.

Two-thirds of new patients and three-quarters of rollovers received doses in the 10-20 mg range. The highest dose in the study of 35 mg was used by only 8%-9% of patients, but the highest approved and marketed dose is 30 mg.
 

Long-term benefits

Onset of efficacy was achieved by 15 minutes after dose for both new and rollover patients, and maximal efficacy occurred by 30 minutes. Results were very similar at 24, 36, and 48 weeks. The investigators did not perform statistical analyses.

Across study weeks 1, 12, 24, 36, and 48, between 77% and 92% of new patients and between 65% and 77% of rollover patients self-reported full ON within 30 minutes. “The long-term benefits are maintained over a year as far as the speed of onset and the duration,” Dr. Pahwa said.

Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in about half of the new and the rollover patient groups in the titration phase and in 71%-81% of patients during the long-term safety phase. Nearly all were mild to moderate in severity.

A large number of participants withdrew from this long-term safety phase because of adverse events – 90 (33%) of new enrollees and 16 (23%) of rollover patients. Only 4% dropped out for lack of efficacy, all in the new enrollee group. Because the sublingual formulation is delivered under the tongue, patients in that group had more oral side effects, Dr. Pahwa said. Otherwise, “the side effects were very similar to the subcutaneous delivery.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events specific to sublingual apomorphine included oral mucosal erythema, lip or tongue swelling, and mouth ulceration (6% to 7% of patients each). Occurring less often were glossodynia, oral candidiasis, stomatitis, and tongue ulceration (2% each).

These were in addition to adverse events typically occurring with subcutaneous apomorphine, which are nausea, falls, dizziness, somnolence, dyskinesia, syncope, and yawning.

There are no head-to-head comparisons of sublingual versus subcutaneous delivery of apomorphine. But based on experience, Dr. Pahwa said, “With the subcutaneous, you have a slightly faster onset of action compared to the sublingual. However, sublingual has a slightly longer duration of benefit.”

He predicted that patients may prefer using an injection for a faster benefit or a sublingual for a slightly longer benefit.
 

More therapeutic options are welcome

Commenting on the study, Ray Dorsey, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said that, for people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease “there’s usually a caregiver who’s injecting someone with an off period, as opposed to sublingual, which seems like a much easier way of administering a drug, especially for people with motor fluctuations.”

He noted that adverse events that led to premature discontinuation from the study “are concerning about the overall tolerability of the drug, which also will be determined in clinical practice, and will likely influence its overall utility.”

However, more therapeutic options are welcome because “the number of people with advanced Parkinson’s disease is going to grow and grow substantially,” he said. “So having therapies that help people with more advanced Parkinson’s disease ... many of whom don’t reach the clinic ... are going to be increasingly important.”

The study was supported by Sunovion. Dr. Pahwa and Dr. Dorsey reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources in industry.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It may be possible to diagnose Parkinson’s disease with a skin test, a new study suggests. For the study, researchers used a chemical assay to detect clumping of the protein alpha-synuclein, a hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, in autopsy skin samples taken from patients who had Parkinson’s disease confirmed by brain pathology and from controls without the disease. The test showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.

The study was published online in Movement Disorders.

“This test has a lot of promise,” said senior author Anumantha Kanthasamy, PhD, professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University in Ames. “At present there are no peripheral biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease. The current diagnosis is just based on symptoms, and the symptoms can be similar to many other neurological diseases,” he added. “It can take many years to establish a correct diagnosis and the accuracy is low even with experienced neurologists.”

If the current results can be replicated in samples from live patients and in those with very early stages of Parkinson’s disease, a skin test could allow early diagnosis and the possibility of starting preventive treatments to slow disease progression before symptoms develop too severely, the researchers suggest.
 

Sensitive and specific test

The blinded study used a seeding assay – used previously to detect misfolded proteins in prion diseases – to analyze 50 skin samples provided by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders/Brain and Body Donation Program based at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City.

Half of the skin samples came from patients with Parkinson’s disease and half came from people without neurologic disease. The protein assay correctly diagnosed 24 out of 25 patients with Parkinson’s disease and only one of the 25 controls had the protein clumping.

“At present, the only way to definitely diagnose Parkinson’s disease is on autopsy – by the detection of alpha-synuclein clumps [Lewy bodies] in the brain,” commented Charles Adler, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and a coinvestigator of the study. “In our research, we have also seen clumping of alpha-synuclein in many other organs including submandibular gland, colon, skin, heart, and stomach, but in terms of access, the skin is probably the easiest source.”

In this study, “we found this seeding assay for alpha-synuclein clumps to be extremely sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease,” he added. “This is very valuable data as we have samples from patients with autopsy-validated Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A reliable biomarker?

The researchers are now starting a study in living patients with funding from the National Institutes of Health in which they will repeat the process comparing skin samples from patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson’s disease and controls.

“We need to know whether analyzing alpha-synuclein clumping in skin biopsies from live patients with Parkinson’s disease would serve as a reliable biomarker for disease progression. Will clumping of this protein in skin samples increase over time and does it correspond with disease progression?” Dr. Adler said.

In future they are also hoping to test individuals who have not yet developed Parkinson’s disease but may have some prodromal type symptoms and to test whether this assay could measure a treatment effect of drug therapy.

Dr. Adler noted that they are currently conducting an autopsy study of skin samples from individuals who did not have clinical Parkinson’s disease when alive but in whom Lewy bodies have been found postmortem.

“This suggests that the disease pathology starts before Parkinson’s symptoms develop, and in the future, if we can diagnose Parkinson’s disease earlier then we may be able to stop progression,” he said.

“There is a long list of compounds that have been studied to try and slow progression but haven’t shown benefits, but by the time patients develop symptoms they already have significant disease and [have] lost most of their dopamine neurons,” he added. “If we could backtrack by 10 years, then these drugs may well make a difference.”

Dr. Adler also noted that currently more advanced patients may undergo invasive procedures such as deep brain stimulation or surgery. “It is of utmost importance that they have an accurate diagnosis before being subjected to such procedures.”

In addition, he pointed out that an accurate test would help the drug development process. “It is vitally important to enroll patients with an accurate diagnosis in clinical trials of new drugs. At present, a large percentage of patients in these trials may not actually have Parkinson’s disease, which makes it very difficult to show a treatment effect.”
 

Important step, but preliminary

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the study “is an important step toward the creation of a new way to potentially diagnose Parkinson’s disease.”

But he cautioned that this is a preliminary study. “To really confirm the possibility of using this approach for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, a larger study will be necessary. And it will be important to test this in a population with early disease – the most difficult group to accurately diagnose.”

Also commenting on the findings, Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health in Los Angeles, who is part of a team also working on ways to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein to diagnose Parkinson’s disease, described the current study of skin samples as “pretty nifty.”

“Their research shows clearly that they can distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls in this way,” she said. “The big advantage of this study is that they have brain pathology, so they know exactly which individuals had Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Ritz is working with Gal Bitan, PhD, from the UCLA Brain Research Institute on a potential blood test to measure abnormal alpha-synuclein.

Dr. Ritz explained that it is not possible to measure alpha-synuclein pathology in regular blood samples as it is expressed normally in red blood cells, but they are measuring the protein and its more toxic phosphorylated form from exosomes, which contain the waste discarded by cells using technology that determines the origin of these exosomes.

“Alpha-synuclein itself is not a problem. It is the way it misfolds that causes toxicity and disrupts the workings of the cell,” Dr. Ritz added. “In Parkinson’s disease, it is particularly toxic to dopaminergic neurons, and in multiple system atrophy, it is toxic to glial cells, so if we can identify the source of the protein then that could be helpful.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the US Army Medical Research Materiel Command. The study authors, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Ritz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

Last month, the American College of Rheumatology joined with 11 other medical associations and disease societies asking health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare (UHC) to not proceed with its proposed copay accumulator medical benefit program.

Copay accumulators are policies adopted by insurance companies or their pharmacy benefit managers to exclude patient copayment assistance programs for high-cost drugs, which are promulgated by the drug manufacturers, from being applied to a patient’s annual deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. The manufacturer’s copay assistance, such as in the form of coupons, is designed to minimize the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. But insurers believe manufacturers will have no pressure to lower the prices of expensive specialty drugs unless patients are unable to afford them. Copay accumulators thus are aimed at giving insurers more leverage in negotiating prices for high-cost drugs.

UHC issued its new copay accumulator protocol for commercial individual and fully insured group plans in early October, effective Jan. 1, 2021, “in order to align employer costs for specialty medications with actual member out of pocket and deductibles,” according to the company’s announcement. In other words, patients will need to pay a higher share of the costs of these medications, said rheumatologist Christopher Phillips, MD, who chairs the Insurance Subcommittee of ACR’s Rheumatologic Care Committee. The annual price of biologic therapies for rheumatologic conditions ranges from $22,000 to $44,000, according to a recent press release from ACR.

The copay accumulator will negate the benefits of manufacturers’ copayment assistance programs for the patient, shifting more of the cost to the patient. With patients being forced to pay a higher share of drug costs for expensive biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other rheumatologic conditions, they’ll stop taking the treatments, Dr. Phillips said.

“In my solo rheumatology practice in Paducah, Kentucky, when I’ve seen this kind of program applied on the pharmacy benefit side, rather than the medical benefit side, almost uniformly patients stop taking the high-cost treatments.” That can lead to disease flares, complications, and permanent disability. The newer rheumatologic drugs can cost $500 to $1,000 per treatment, and in many cases, there’s no generic or lower-cost alternative, he says. “We see policies like this as sacrificing patients to the battle over high drug prices. It’s bad practice, bad for patient outcomes, and nobody – apart from the payer – benefits.”

In ACR’s 2020 Rheumatic Disease Patient Survey, nearly half of 1,109 online survey respondents who had rheumatic diseases reported out-of-pocket costs greater than $1,000 per year for treatment. An IQVIA report from 2016 found that one in four specialty brand prescriptions are abandoned during the deductible phase, three times the rate seen when there is no deductible.

In an Oct. 7 letter to UHC, the 12 groups acknowledged that the drugs targeted by the accumulator policy are expensive. “However, they are also vitally important for our patients.” In addition to the ACR, the organizations involved include the AIDS Institute, American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Kidney Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Association for Clinical Oncology, Cancer Support Community, Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

UHC did not reply to questions in time for publication.


 

First large-scale payer to try copay accumulator program

Under UHC’s proposed policy, providers will be required to use UHC’s portal to report payment information received from drug manufacturer copay assistance programs that are applied to patients’ cost share of these drugs through a complex, 14-step “coupon submission process” involving multiple technology interfaces. “My first oath as a physician is to do no harm to my patient. Many of us are concerned about making these reports, which could harm our patients and undermine the doctor-patient relationship,” Dr. Phillips said.

“If I don’t report, what happens? I don’t think we know the answer to that. Some of us may decide we need to part ways with UHC.” Others may decline to participate in the drug manufacturers’ coupon programs beyond simply informing patients that manufacturer assistance is available.

“We’ve watched these copay accumulator policies for several years,” he said. “Some of them are rather opaque, with names like ‘copay savings programs’ or ‘copay value programs.’ But we had not seen a large-scale payer try to do this until now. Let’s face it: If UHC’s policy goes through, you can count the days until we see it from others.”

The Department of Health & Human Services, in its May 2020 final federal “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021,” indicated that individual states have the responsibility to regulate copay accumulator programs. Five states have banned them or restricted their use for individual and small group health plans. Arizona, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia passed such laws in 2019, and Georgia did so earlier this year.

“In next year’s state legislative sessions, we’ll make it a priority to pursue similar laws in other states,” Dr. Phillips said. “I’d encourage rheumatologists to educate their patients on the issues and be active in advocating for them.”

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

Chances are your female patients of childbearing age with multiple sclerosis—particularly if they become pregnant—will ask about breastfeeding. What are they likely to ask, and how should you answer? Here’s a quick rundown.

What kind of impact will breastfeeding have on my child?

We know that MS is not a genetic disease per se-it is neither autosomal recessive nor dominant. But there is an increased risk among family members, particularly first-degree relatives. If a patient asks, you can tell them it appears that infants who are breastfed are less likely to develop pediatric-onset MS.

In 2017, Brenton and colleagues asked individuals who experienced pediatric-onset MS (n=36)  and those in a control group (n=72) to complete a questionnaire that covered breastfeeding history and other birth and demographic features. While most demographic and birth features were similar, 36% of those in the pediatric-onset MS group reported being breastfed, compared with 71% of controls. Individuals who were not breastfed were nearly 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with pediatric-onset MS.

How will breastfeeding impact my risk of MS relapse after giving birth?

The issue of breastfeeding and MS relapses is somewhat controversial. In 1988, Nelson and colleagues  found that among 191 women with MS who became pregnant, 10% relapsed during pregnancy, but relapse rate rose to 34% during the 9 months after birth. Moreover, nearly 4 in 10 of those who breastfed experienced exacerbations, versus 3 in 10 among those who did not.

However, more recent studies demonstrate no association with breastfeeding and relapse. Just this year, Gould and colleagues published a study showing that among 466 pregnancies, annualized relapse rates declined during pregnancy, and there was no increase seen in the postpartum period. Moreover, women who exclusively breastfed saw their risk of an early postpartum relapse lowered by 63%.

In late 2019, Krysko and colleagues  published a meta-analysis of 24 studies involving nearly 3,000 women with MS which showed that breastfeeds were 43% less likely to experience postpartum relapse compared with their non-breastfeeding counterparts. The link was stronger in studies where women breastfed exclusively.

The bottom line: There is a plurality of physicians who believe that breastfeeding has a protective effect – and most will tell you that you should recommend exclusive breastfeeding.

What medicines can I take that will not adversely affect me and my baby?

Once a woman knows that breastfeeding could help her offspring avoid developing MS, and minimize her chance of a postpartum relapse, she will likely ask what to do about medications. You answer will depends on what she’s taking.

• Drugs she can take with relative peace of mind. Most experts believe it is safe to take corticosteroids and breastfeed. In fact, women who relapse while breastfeeding will in all likelihood be given intravenous corticosteroids, such as methylprednisolone. These medications are present in the blood at very low levels, peak an hour after infusion, and quickly dissipate. So, it’s important to tell your patients to delay breastfeeding by 2 to 4 hours after they receive the steroid.

• Drugs that are potentially concerning and require close monitoring. For the so-called platform therapies—such as interferon beta/glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, and their generic equivalents—there are no large studies that clearly demonstrate safety. Still, they are generally thought to be safe. Be sure to heed FDA labeling: weigh breastfeeding benefit against the potential risk

• Drug to avoid entirely. Under no circumstances should breastfeeding women receive teriflunomide, cladribine, alemtuzumab, or mitoxantrone. The jury is still out on rituximab—which is not yet approved for MS in the United States—and ocrelizumab. For now, err on the safe side and switch to another therapy.

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com