Feature

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

Tremors and memory symptoms were identified among individuals in a primary care setting as early as 10 years before a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in a new study.

Most research on the causes and early signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD) have involved patients of Northern European ancestry, Cristina Simonet, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Neurology.

Additionally, data on how PD might manifest in different ethnic groups are limited, they said.

In their nested case-control, the researchers examined data from electronic health records of an ethnically diverse population of 1,016,277 adults seen in primary care practices between 1990 and Feb. 6, 2018. They compared individuals with PD with those without PD or other neurologic conditions.

The researchers identified 10 age and sex-matched controls for each PD case, and also conducted an unmatched analysis after adjusting for age and sex. The final study population included 1,055 patients with PD and 1,009,523 controls. The population of PD cases was 15.7% Black, 19.7% South Asian, 50.9% White, and 8.3% other; the population of controls was 13.3% Black, 21.5% South Asian, 43.7% White, and 11.3% other.

“We observed a constellation of symptoms noted by general practitioners up to a decade before diagnosis of PD,” the researchers said. Symptoms were identified across three time intervals (less than 2 years, 2-5 years, and 5-10 years before diagnosis) to better evaluate exposure outcome associations.

In the matched analysis of midlife risk factors, epilepsy showed the strongest association with PD diagnosis across all time periods, and type 2 diabetes or hypertension 5-10 years before diagnosis was associated with later PD.

Prediagnostic signs of PD included both motor and nonmotor manifestations.

The matched analysis revealed a significant increased association between tremor and memory symptoms less than 2 years before diagnosis (adjusted odds ratios of 151.24 and 8.73, respectively) as well as up to 10 years before diagnosis for tremors and up to 5 years for memory symptoms (aOR, 11.4 and 3.09, respectively) in PD patients, compared with controls.

Other strong associations between PD and early nonmotor features in cases, compared with controls, included hypotension (aOR, 6.81), constipation (aOR, 3.29), and depression (aOR, 4.61).

In addition, the researchers found associations for epilepsy that had not been identified in previous studies, and these associations persisted in a replication analysis.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of routine primary care data with underascertained factors of interest, and potential mislabeling of PD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on prescription medication for PD, and the recording of memory problems in primary care without supportive testing to confirm cognitive impairment.

The results support a range of comorbidities and symptoms that may present in primary care, and clinicians should consider PD as a possible cause, the researchers wrote.
 

Make early referral a priority

The study is important because of the lack of diversity in Parkinson’s disease research, lead author Dr. Simonet said in an interview.

“Over the last decade, the global population suffering from Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled,” she said. Causes may include the increasing numbers of older people with longer life expectancy. “However, it seems there are other factors, including environmental, genetic, and lifestyle, that might play a role in increasing the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease.”

“More representative studies, including minority ethnic groups and those living in areas of high social and economic deprivation, are needed,” Dr. Simonet emphasized.

She said that there is little research on the association with epilepsy and hearing loss in early PD, and “for that reason, our results should encourage further studies to confirm a possible link between these manifestations and Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early detection may drive better diagnoses

The current study is important for understanding the prediagnostic features and risk factors that may allow for earlier detection of Parkinson’s disease, William Hung, MD, a geriatrics and palliative care specialist of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Prior to this study, there was limited understanding of these features.

“One surprise [in the findings] was that ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation do not appear to be associated with the risk of PD, in contrast to other illnesses such as dementia,” said Dr. Hung. “The array of prediagnostic features associated with PD is not surprising, but nonetheless important for clinicians to know to consider whether PD could be the underlying cause.”

The take-home message for primary care is that “there are features, such as hearing loss, history of epilepsy, autonomic symptoms, motor symptoms, among others, for which clinicians should consider PD as part of the differential diagnosis as underlying cause and consider referral to specialists for diagnostic clarification,” said Dr. Hung.

“Additional research is needed to translate these findings to care, perhaps developing decision aids, interventions that may help with diagnosis and evaluation,” as is work on understanding the link between PD and symptoms such as hearing loss and epilepsy, he said.
 

Primary care offers opportunity to identify risk factors

The current study represents an important step in early recognition of PD, with implications for helping patients access treatments promptly and improve their quality of life, Bhavana Patel, DO, Shannon Chiu, MD, and Melissa J. Armstrong, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The primary care setting is commonly where symptoms heralding the onset of PD are first discussed. However, little is known regarding the prediagnostic manifestations of PD that are seen in primary care clinics, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote.

The study included many risk factors and prodromal markers associated with research criteria for prodromal PD, but did not include several risk and prodromal markers in the Movement Disorders Society research criteria, “such as symptoms suggestive of REM sleep behavior disorder, excessive daytime sleepiness (which overlaps with, but is distinct from, fatigue), urinary dysfunction, pesticide and solvent exposure, caffeine use, level of physical activity, and family history,” they said.

Even in individuals with diagnosed PD, certain symptoms, particularly nonmotor symptoms, are commonly underreported,” and primary care clinicians may not recognize these symptoms as PD risk factors, the authors noted.

However, “in addition to contributing to possible models of modifiable risk factors for PD, study results may also further inform algorithms designed to predict PD diagnoses in primary care,” they said. The study also highlights the need for more multivariable models to better identify PD risk factors and strategies for early identification of PD in primary care.

Several study coauthors received funding related to the study from Barts Charity, Health Data Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities, as well as the National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre. Lead author Dr. Simonet and Dr. Hung had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patel disclosed support from the National Institute on Aging, the Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia, and the American Brain Foundation and the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust. Dr. Chiu reported receiving grants from Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia and the Smallwood Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Florida Department of Health, the Lewy Body Dementia Association, the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute/Alzheimer’s Clinical Trial Consortium, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study as Data Safety Monitoring Board the Parkinson’s Foundation, and the American Academy of Neurology.

Tremors and memory symptoms were identified among individuals in a primary care setting as early as 10 years before a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in a new study.

Most research on the causes and early signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD) have involved patients of Northern European ancestry, Cristina Simonet, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Neurology.

Additionally, data on how PD might manifest in different ethnic groups are limited, they said.

In their nested case-control, the researchers examined data from electronic health records of an ethnically diverse population of 1,016,277 adults seen in primary care practices between 1990 and Feb. 6, 2018. They compared individuals with PD with those without PD or other neurologic conditions.

The researchers identified 10 age and sex-matched controls for each PD case, and also conducted an unmatched analysis after adjusting for age and sex. The final study population included 1,055 patients with PD and 1,009,523 controls. The population of PD cases was 15.7% Black, 19.7% South Asian, 50.9% White, and 8.3% other; the population of controls was 13.3% Black, 21.5% South Asian, 43.7% White, and 11.3% other.

“We observed a constellation of symptoms noted by general practitioners up to a decade before diagnosis of PD,” the researchers said. Symptoms were identified across three time intervals (less than 2 years, 2-5 years, and 5-10 years before diagnosis) to better evaluate exposure outcome associations.

In the matched analysis of midlife risk factors, epilepsy showed the strongest association with PD diagnosis across all time periods, and type 2 diabetes or hypertension 5-10 years before diagnosis was associated with later PD.

Prediagnostic signs of PD included both motor and nonmotor manifestations.

The matched analysis revealed a significant increased association between tremor and memory symptoms less than 2 years before diagnosis (adjusted odds ratios of 151.24 and 8.73, respectively) as well as up to 10 years before diagnosis for tremors and up to 5 years for memory symptoms (aOR, 11.4 and 3.09, respectively) in PD patients, compared with controls.

Other strong associations between PD and early nonmotor features in cases, compared with controls, included hypotension (aOR, 6.81), constipation (aOR, 3.29), and depression (aOR, 4.61).

In addition, the researchers found associations for epilepsy that had not been identified in previous studies, and these associations persisted in a replication analysis.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of routine primary care data with underascertained factors of interest, and potential mislabeling of PD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on prescription medication for PD, and the recording of memory problems in primary care without supportive testing to confirm cognitive impairment.

The results support a range of comorbidities and symptoms that may present in primary care, and clinicians should consider PD as a possible cause, the researchers wrote.
 

Make early referral a priority

The study is important because of the lack of diversity in Parkinson’s disease research, lead author Dr. Simonet said in an interview.

“Over the last decade, the global population suffering from Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled,” she said. Causes may include the increasing numbers of older people with longer life expectancy. “However, it seems there are other factors, including environmental, genetic, and lifestyle, that might play a role in increasing the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease.”

“More representative studies, including minority ethnic groups and those living in areas of high social and economic deprivation, are needed,” Dr. Simonet emphasized.

She said that there is little research on the association with epilepsy and hearing loss in early PD, and “for that reason, our results should encourage further studies to confirm a possible link between these manifestations and Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early detection may drive better diagnoses

The current study is important for understanding the prediagnostic features and risk factors that may allow for earlier detection of Parkinson’s disease, William Hung, MD, a geriatrics and palliative care specialist of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Prior to this study, there was limited understanding of these features.

“One surprise [in the findings] was that ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation do not appear to be associated with the risk of PD, in contrast to other illnesses such as dementia,” said Dr. Hung. “The array of prediagnostic features associated with PD is not surprising, but nonetheless important for clinicians to know to consider whether PD could be the underlying cause.”

The take-home message for primary care is that “there are features, such as hearing loss, history of epilepsy, autonomic symptoms, motor symptoms, among others, for which clinicians should consider PD as part of the differential diagnosis as underlying cause and consider referral to specialists for diagnostic clarification,” said Dr. Hung.

“Additional research is needed to translate these findings to care, perhaps developing decision aids, interventions that may help with diagnosis and evaluation,” as is work on understanding the link between PD and symptoms such as hearing loss and epilepsy, he said.
 

Primary care offers opportunity to identify risk factors

The current study represents an important step in early recognition of PD, with implications for helping patients access treatments promptly and improve their quality of life, Bhavana Patel, DO, Shannon Chiu, MD, and Melissa J. Armstrong, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The primary care setting is commonly where symptoms heralding the onset of PD are first discussed. However, little is known regarding the prediagnostic manifestations of PD that are seen in primary care clinics, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote.

The study included many risk factors and prodromal markers associated with research criteria for prodromal PD, but did not include several risk and prodromal markers in the Movement Disorders Society research criteria, “such as symptoms suggestive of REM sleep behavior disorder, excessive daytime sleepiness (which overlaps with, but is distinct from, fatigue), urinary dysfunction, pesticide and solvent exposure, caffeine use, level of physical activity, and family history,” they said.

Even in individuals with diagnosed PD, certain symptoms, particularly nonmotor symptoms, are commonly underreported,” and primary care clinicians may not recognize these symptoms as PD risk factors, the authors noted.

However, “in addition to contributing to possible models of modifiable risk factors for PD, study results may also further inform algorithms designed to predict PD diagnoses in primary care,” they said. The study also highlights the need for more multivariable models to better identify PD risk factors and strategies for early identification of PD in primary care.

Several study coauthors received funding related to the study from Barts Charity, Health Data Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities, as well as the National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre. Lead author Dr. Simonet and Dr. Hung had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patel disclosed support from the National Institute on Aging, the Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia, and the American Brain Foundation and the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust. Dr. Chiu reported receiving grants from Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia and the Smallwood Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Florida Department of Health, the Lewy Body Dementia Association, the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute/Alzheimer’s Clinical Trial Consortium, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study as Data Safety Monitoring Board the Parkinson’s Foundation, and the American Academy of Neurology.

Tremors and memory symptoms were identified among individuals in a primary care setting as early as 10 years before a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in a new study.

Most research on the causes and early signs of Parkinson’s disease (PD) have involved patients of Northern European ancestry, Cristina Simonet, MD, of Queen Mary University of London, and colleagues wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Neurology.

Additionally, data on how PD might manifest in different ethnic groups are limited, they said.

In their nested case-control, the researchers examined data from electronic health records of an ethnically diverse population of 1,016,277 adults seen in primary care practices between 1990 and Feb. 6, 2018. They compared individuals with PD with those without PD or other neurologic conditions.

The researchers identified 10 age and sex-matched controls for each PD case, and also conducted an unmatched analysis after adjusting for age and sex. The final study population included 1,055 patients with PD and 1,009,523 controls. The population of PD cases was 15.7% Black, 19.7% South Asian, 50.9% White, and 8.3% other; the population of controls was 13.3% Black, 21.5% South Asian, 43.7% White, and 11.3% other.

“We observed a constellation of symptoms noted by general practitioners up to a decade before diagnosis of PD,” the researchers said. Symptoms were identified across three time intervals (less than 2 years, 2-5 years, and 5-10 years before diagnosis) to better evaluate exposure outcome associations.

In the matched analysis of midlife risk factors, epilepsy showed the strongest association with PD diagnosis across all time periods, and type 2 diabetes or hypertension 5-10 years before diagnosis was associated with later PD.

Prediagnostic signs of PD included both motor and nonmotor manifestations.

The matched analysis revealed a significant increased association between tremor and memory symptoms less than 2 years before diagnosis (adjusted odds ratios of 151.24 and 8.73, respectively) as well as up to 10 years before diagnosis for tremors and up to 5 years for memory symptoms (aOR, 11.4 and 3.09, respectively) in PD patients, compared with controls.

Other strong associations between PD and early nonmotor features in cases, compared with controls, included hypotension (aOR, 6.81), constipation (aOR, 3.29), and depression (aOR, 4.61).

In addition, the researchers found associations for epilepsy that had not been identified in previous studies, and these associations persisted in a replication analysis.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the use of routine primary care data with underascertained factors of interest, and potential mislabeling of PD, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on prescription medication for PD, and the recording of memory problems in primary care without supportive testing to confirm cognitive impairment.

The results support a range of comorbidities and symptoms that may present in primary care, and clinicians should consider PD as a possible cause, the researchers wrote.
 

Make early referral a priority

The study is important because of the lack of diversity in Parkinson’s disease research, lead author Dr. Simonet said in an interview.

“Over the last decade, the global population suffering from Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled,” she said. Causes may include the increasing numbers of older people with longer life expectancy. “However, it seems there are other factors, including environmental, genetic, and lifestyle, that might play a role in increasing the prevalence of Parkinson’s disease.”

“More representative studies, including minority ethnic groups and those living in areas of high social and economic deprivation, are needed,” Dr. Simonet emphasized.

She said that there is little research on the association with epilepsy and hearing loss in early PD, and “for that reason, our results should encourage further studies to confirm a possible link between these manifestations and Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early detection may drive better diagnoses

The current study is important for understanding the prediagnostic features and risk factors that may allow for earlier detection of Parkinson’s disease, William Hung, MD, a geriatrics and palliative care specialist of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview. “Prior to this study, there was limited understanding of these features.

“One surprise [in the findings] was that ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation do not appear to be associated with the risk of PD, in contrast to other illnesses such as dementia,” said Dr. Hung. “The array of prediagnostic features associated with PD is not surprising, but nonetheless important for clinicians to know to consider whether PD could be the underlying cause.”

The take-home message for primary care is that “there are features, such as hearing loss, history of epilepsy, autonomic symptoms, motor symptoms, among others, for which clinicians should consider PD as part of the differential diagnosis as underlying cause and consider referral to specialists for diagnostic clarification,” said Dr. Hung.

“Additional research is needed to translate these findings to care, perhaps developing decision aids, interventions that may help with diagnosis and evaluation,” as is work on understanding the link between PD and symptoms such as hearing loss and epilepsy, he said.
 

Primary care offers opportunity to identify risk factors

The current study represents an important step in early recognition of PD, with implications for helping patients access treatments promptly and improve their quality of life, Bhavana Patel, DO, Shannon Chiu, MD, and Melissa J. Armstrong, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The primary care setting is commonly where symptoms heralding the onset of PD are first discussed. However, little is known regarding the prediagnostic manifestations of PD that are seen in primary care clinics, particularly in underserved populations,” they wrote.

The study included many risk factors and prodromal markers associated with research criteria for prodromal PD, but did not include several risk and prodromal markers in the Movement Disorders Society research criteria, “such as symptoms suggestive of REM sleep behavior disorder, excessive daytime sleepiness (which overlaps with, but is distinct from, fatigue), urinary dysfunction, pesticide and solvent exposure, caffeine use, level of physical activity, and family history,” they said.

Even in individuals with diagnosed PD, certain symptoms, particularly nonmotor symptoms, are commonly underreported,” and primary care clinicians may not recognize these symptoms as PD risk factors, the authors noted.

However, “in addition to contributing to possible models of modifiable risk factors for PD, study results may also further inform algorithms designed to predict PD diagnoses in primary care,” they said. The study also highlights the need for more multivariable models to better identify PD risk factors and strategies for early identification of PD in primary care.

Several study coauthors received funding related to the study from Barts Charity, Health Data Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities, as well as the National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre. Lead author Dr. Simonet and Dr. Hung had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patel disclosed support from the National Institute on Aging, the Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia, and the American Brain Foundation and the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust. Dr. Chiu reported receiving grants from Mangurian-Fixel-McKnight Collaboration for Pilot Studies in Lewy Body Dementia and the Smallwood Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Florida Department of Health, the Lewy Body Dementia Association, the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute/Alzheimer’s Clinical Trial Consortium, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study as Data Safety Monitoring Board the Parkinson’s Foundation, and the American Academy of Neurology.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.

When Annie Uhing, MD, is stressed about work, she can call her mom. She and her mom are close, yes, but her mom is also a physician and understands the ups and downs of medical education and the unique challenges of being a woman in medicine.

“My mom and I were talking about this the other day – I don’t think we know any other mother-daughter pairs of doctors,” said Dr. Uhing.

Courtesy Dr. Charlene Gaebler-Uhing

In the United States, the number of female physicians has risen steadily since the mid- and late-20th century. As of 2019, women made up more than half of medical school classes across the country and 36.3% of the physician workforce.

Still, most female physicians are concentrated in a handful of specialties (such as pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology) while the percentages of women in other areas remains extremely low (urology and orthopedic surgery). Many female physicians share anecdotal stories about not being taken seriously, like when a patient mistook them for a nurse, or preferred the advice of a male colleague to their own.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, this news organization talked to two families of female doctors about their experiences in medicine and how they inspire and support one another inside and outside the hospital.
 

Deborah, Charlene, and Annie

When Deborah Gaebler-Spira, MD, started medical school at the University of Illinois in 1975, women made up just 15% of her class. “For me, the idea that as a woman you could have a vocation that could be quite meaningful and self-directed – that was very important,” said Dr. Gaebler-Spira, now a pediatric rehabilitation physician at the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab and professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

She blocked out a lot of discouragement along the way. In undergrad, the dean of the college warned Dr. Gaebler-Spira she’d never make it as a doctor. In medical school interviews, administrators could be hostile. “There was this feeling that you were taking a place of someone who really deserved it,” she said. When selecting a residency, Dr. Gaebler-Spira decided against a career in obstetrics because of the overt misogyny in the field at the time.

Instead, she went into pediatrics and physical medicine and rehabilitation, eventually working to become an expert in cerebral palsy. Along the way, Dr. Gaebler-Spira made lifelong friends with other female physicians and found strong female mentors, including Billie Adams, MD, and Helen Emery, MD.

When her sister, Charlene Gaebler-Uhing, MD, also decided to go into medicine, Dr. Gaebler-Spira said she “thought it was a sign of sanity as she was always much more competitive than I was! And if I could do it, no question she was able!”

Dr. Gaebler-Uhing, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, followed her older sister’s footsteps to medical school in 1983, after first considering a career in social work.

While there were now more women going into medicine – her medical school class was about 25% women – problems persisted. During clinical rotations in residency, Dr. Gaebler-Uhing was often the only woman on a team and made the conscious decision to go professionally by her nickname, Charlie. “If a woman’s name was on the consult, her opinion and insights did not get the same value or respect as a male physician’s,” she said. “The only way they knew I was a woman was if they really knew me.”

The Gaebler sisters leaned on each other professionally and personally throughout their careers. When both sisters practiced in Chicago, they referred patients to one another. And Dr. Gaebler-Uhing said her older sister was a great role model for how to balance the dual roles of physician and parent, as few of the older female doctors who trained her were married or had a child.

Now Dr. Gaebler-Uhing’s daughter, Annie Uhing, MD, is entering medicine herself. She is currently pediatric resident at the University of Wisconsin American Family Hospital. She plans to do a chief year and then a pediatric endocrinology fellowship.

Growing up, Dr. Uhing wasn’t always sure she wanted to work as much as her parents, who are both doctors. But her mom provided a great example few of her friends had at home: “If you want to work, you should work and do what you want to do and it’s not wrong to want to have a really high-powered job as a woman,” said Dr. Uhing.

 

Kathryn, Susan, and Rita

The three sisters Kathryn Hudson, MD, Susan Schmidt, MD, and Rita Butler, MD, were inspired to go into medicine by their mother, Rita Watson, MD, who was one of the first female interventional cardiologists in the United States.

“I think we had a front row seat to what being a doctor was like,” said Dr. Hudson, a hematologist and oncologist and director of survivorship at Texas Oncology in Austin. Both parents were MDs – their dad was a pharmaceutical researcher at Merck – and they would excitedly discuss patient cases and drug development at the dinner table, said Dr. Butler, an interventional cardiology fellow at the Lankenau Heart Institute in Wynnewood, Pa.

All three sisters have vivid memories of ‘Take Your Daughter to Work Day’ at their mom’s hospital. “I remember going to Take Your Daughter to Work Day with her and watching her in action and thinking, oh my gosh, my mom is so cool and I want to be like her,” said Dr. Schmidt, a pediatric critical care specialist at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia. “I’ve always felt special that my mom was doing something really cool and really saving lives,” said Dr. Schmidt.

Their fourth sibling, John, isn’t a physician and “I honestly wonder if it’s because he never went to Take Your Daughter to Work Day!” said Dr. Butler.

Having a mother who had both a high-powered medical career and a family helped the three women know they could do the same. “It is a difficult journey, don’t get me wrong, but I never questioned that I could do it because my mom did it first,” said Dr. Hudson.

As adults, the sisters confide in one another as they navigate modern motherhood and careers, switching between discussing medical cases and parenting advice.

As hard as their mom worked while they were growing up, she didn’t have the pressure of living up to the “super mom” ideal we have now, said Dr. Butler. “Everyone wants women to work like they don’t have kids and everyone wants women to parent like they don’t have a job,” she said. Having two sisters who can provide reassurance and advice in that area goes a long way, she said.

“I think sharing that experience of navigating motherhood, a medical career, and marriage, and adult life with sisters who are going through all the same things is really special and I feel really fortunate for that,” said Dr. Schmidt.

*This story was updated on 3/8/2022.