News

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Near-infrared light delivered to the brain using a specially designed helmet appears to improve memory, motor function, and processing skills in cognitively healthy older adults, in new findings that suggest potential benefit in patients with dementia.

Studies in animals and people have shown “many positive effects” with near-infrared transcranial photobiomodulation therapy (PBM-T), study investigator Paul Chazot, PhD, department of biosciences, Durham University, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

For example, PBM-T has been shown to increase blood circulation (which keeps the brain well oxygenated), boost mitochondria function in neurons, protect neurons from oxidative stress, and help maintain neuronal connectivity, Dr. Chazot explained.

PBM-T has also been shown to reduce amyloid and phosphorylated tau load, pathological signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

“All these in combination improve memory performance and mobility,” Dr. Chazot said.

The study was published online October 18 in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 
 

Promising early data

In the study, 14 healthy adults, aged 45 to 70 years, received 6 minutes of transcranial PBM-T twice daily at a wavelength of 1,068 nanometers over 4 weeks. PBM-T was delivered via a helmet that comprised 14 air-cooled light emitting diode panel arrays. A control group of 13 adults used a sham PBM-T helmet.

Before and after active and sham treatment, all participants completed the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) – a computer-based tool designed to detect speed and accuracy of attention, memory, and thinking ability.

According to the research team, compared with sham PBM-T, those receiving active PBM-T showed significant improvement in motor function (finger tapping), working memory, delayed memory, and brain processing speed, the research team reports. No adverse effects were reported.

“This study complements our other recent studies, which showed improvement in memory performance with no obvious side effects,” said Dr. Chazot.

“While this is a pilot study and more research is needed, there are promising indications that therapy involving infrared light might also be beneficial for people living with dementia, and this is worth exploring,” Dr. Chazot added in a news release.

The PBM-T helmet was devised by first author Gordon Dougal, MBChB, of Maculume in the U.K., and a general practitioner based in Durham.

A recent study by Mr. Dougal, Dr. Chazot, and collaborators in the United States provides early evidence that PBM-T can improve memory in adults with dementia.

In that study, 39 patients received 6 minutes of PBM-T twice a day for 8 weeks, alongside a control group of 17 patients who received sham PBM-T.

After 8 weeks, there was about a 20% improvement in Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores in the active PBM-T group compared with roughly a 6% improvement in the control group, the researchers report in the journal Cureus.
 

More research needed

Reached for comment, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said using light to stimulate the brain is “an emerging technology.”

“However, this is a very small study in healthy volunteers, therefore we don’t know from this work alone if this approach would work as an intervention or reduce [the] risk of cognitive decline,” Dr. Edelmayer told this news organization.

“That being said, we’re starting to see companies looking at similar, noninvasive methods of stimulating the brain. For example, brain stimulation devices have been applied to other neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s to try to prevent degeneration of brain cells,” Dr. Edelmayer noted. 

She said more research is needed to understand how photobiomodulation might be used as a therapy or prevention for cognitive decline and dementia.

“Specifically, we need to understand what parts of the brain need to be targeted and at what point(s) in the disease course this treatment would be most impactful. If proven to be effective, this could possibly be part of an approach that’s combined with other treatments, like drugs and lifestyle interventions,” said Dr. Edelmayer.

The Alzheimer’s Association is funding a number of projects looking at noninvasive treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, including two clinical trials looking at deep brain stimulation and photobiomodulation.

Maculume provided funding for the study. Mr. Dougal is a majority shareholder in the company, which manufactures the helmet device used in the study. Dr. Chazot, study co-authors, and Dr. Edelmayer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although slightly fewer than 1% of hospitalizations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complicated by sepsis, this complication increases the risk for in-hospital mortality fivefold, investigators who studied a representative national sample found.

Among nearly 7 million hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD, nearly 65,000 (0.93%) patients experienced sepsis as a complication. In all, 31% of patients with COPD and sepsis were discharged from the hospital to another care facility, and 19% of patients died in hospital, report Harshil Shah, MD, from Guthrie Corning (N.Y.) Hospital and colleagues.

“Our study highlights the need for better risk stratification in patients with COPD developing sepsis to improve the outcomes. Further studies are warranted to consider factoring some of the modifiable factors into account and to ameliorate the outcomes of sepsis during COPD hospitalizations,” Dr. Shah and colleagues write in a poster presented during the at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

COPD has been associated with increased risk for sepsis because of the use of corticosteroids, underlying comorbidities, and, potentially, because of impaired barrier function, the authors note.
 

Nationwide sample

To determine the effects of sepsis and predictors of poor outcomes among patients hospitalized for COPD, the investigators used standard diagnostic codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the period 2007 through 2018 and sepsis from codes in secondary fields in the International Classification of Diseases (9th/10th Editions) Clinical Modification.

They identified a total of 6,940,615 hospitalizations in which the primary diagnosis was COPD; in 64,748 of those cases, sepsis was a complication.

As noted, the in-hospital death rate, one of two primary outcomes, was 19% for patients with COPD and sepsis, and the rate of discharge to other facilities was 31%.

In analysis adjusted for confounding factors, sepsis was associated with an odds ratio for mortality of 4.9 (P < .01) and an OR for discharge to a facility of 2.2 (P < .01).

With regard to trends, the investigators saw that, although the adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality remained stable over time, discharge to facilities increased significantly. In 2007, the adjusted OR was 2.2, whereas in 2018, it was 2.6 (P for trend = .02).

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis included increasing age (OR, not shown), White ethnicity (OR, 1.2), treatment in the Northeast region (OR, 1.4), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR, 3.7), pneumococcal infection (OR, 1.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.2), and renal failure (OR, 1.4; P < .01 for all comparisons).
 

Mortality risk for many patients

A COPD specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization that sepsis is an uncommon but serious complication, not just for patients with COPD but also for those with other severe illnesses.

“Sepsis has a high risk for mortality whether a person has COPD or not,” commented David M. Mannino III MD, FCCP, FERS, professor of medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and a cofounder and co–medical director of the COPD Foundation.

“It’s not surprising that sepsis is lethal in this population; the question is, if you have COPD, are you more likely to have sepsis? And I think the answer is probably yes. The connection there is that people with COPD have a higher risk for pneumonia, and pneumonia itself is probably one of the biggest risk factors, or certainly an important risk factor, for the development of sepsis,” he said in an interview.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with other chronic diseases or people without COPD, he said, and he would have liked to have seen more detailed information about trends over time than Dr. Shah and colleagues provided.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Shah and colleagues and Dr. Mannino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.

Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
 

Higher death rates for Black patients

At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.

To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.

All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.

In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.

The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.

The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.

Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.

Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
 

Missing data

Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.

“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.

He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.

“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.

“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.

The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.

However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
 

Mistaken identity

Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.

Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.

Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
 

Challenging case

In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.

“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.

The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.

A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.

“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.

The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.

Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.

Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.

“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.

Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.

The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.

However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
 

Mistaken identity

Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.

Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.

Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
 

Challenging case

In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.

“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.

The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.

A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.

“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.

The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.

Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.

Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.

“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.

Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.

The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.

However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
 

Mistaken identity

Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.

Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.

Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
 

Challenging case

In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.

“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.

The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.

A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.

“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.

The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.

Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.

Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.

“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.

Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.

The high cost of new cancer drugs has been the subject of many debates and discussions, but the issue remains largely unresolved.

Now, one pharmaceutical company is offering a refund if its drug “doesn’t work.”

For what it says is the first time in the industry, Pfizer has issued a warranty on crizotinib (Xalkori) and will refund the cost that was paid for the medicine if it doesn’t work within the first 3 months of use.

“Through this pilot program, Pfizer will offer a warranty to patients and health plans -- Medicare Part D, commercial and those who pay cash -- who are prescribed Xalkori for an FDA [US Food and Drug Administration]–approved indication,” said a company spokesperson.

Although Pfizer claims that its pilot program is a first in the industry, there have been others that are similar.

In 2017, Novartis offered something similar for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run healthcare system collected €200 million ($220 million) in refunds.
 

Pfizer pledge

Crizotinib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor used mainly in the treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer for patients whose tumors are positive for ALK or ROS1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication was approved a decade ago. Another indication, ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, was added earlier this year.

Details of the Pfizer Pledge are posted on Pfizer’s website. Eligible patients are those for whom crizotinib is discontinued before the fourth 30-day supply is dispensed by the patient’s pharmacy.

“The warranty will reimburse an amount equal to the cost paid for the medicine,” the spokesperson added. “The insurance-backed warranty pilot program will be insured and managed by AIG.”

This program is only available for patients who reside in the United States.

If use of crizotinib is discontinued and documentation of ineffectiveness is provided, Pfizer will refund the out-of-pocket amount that was paid for up to the first three bottles (30-day supply) of crizotinib, up to a maximum of $19,144 for each month’s supply, or a total of $57,432. Pfizer will also refund the cost that was paid by Medicare or a commercial insurer.

“Also, we have made sure to develop a program that also allows for Medicare patients to be eligible, since they are exempt from copay cards and at risk for significant financial burden when starting an oncology treatment,” said the spokesperson.

The pilot program is available to patients who began taking crizotinib from June 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.

So far, Pfizer is offering this warranty only for crizotinib, but that may change in the future.

“Once the pilot is complete, we will assess learnings and consider whether to build a more robust, scalable program capable of supporting multiple products,” the Pfizer spokesperson commented.
 

Previous scheme ended in court

Pfizer had previously tried a different approach to reducing drug costs: it had attempted to offer copay support programs to Medicare patients who were prescribed its cardiac drug tafamidis (Vyndaqe, Vyndamax).

Tafamidis, launched in 2019, is used for patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. For those patients, it has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations. It costs about $225,000 a year and has been described as the most expensive cardiovascular drug in the United States.

Earlier this month, a court dismissed Pfizer’s challenge to an anti-kickback law that prevented the company from offering copay support programs to Medicare patients.

The judge ruled that Pfizer’s plan to offer direct payments to patients violated a federal ban on “knowingly or willfully” providing financial support to induce drug purchases, even in the absence of corrupt intent.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are forbidden from subsidizing copayments for Medicare beneficiaries but are allowed to donate to independent nonprofit organizations that offer copay assistance. Pfizer sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June 2020 to get a court ruling that their proposed programs were legal.

The new pledge program for crizotinib operates from a different premise, the Pfizer spokesperson commented.

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

The high cost of new cancer drugs has been the subject of many debates and discussions, but the issue remains largely unresolved.

Now, one pharmaceutical company is offering a refund if its drug “doesn’t work.”

For what it says is the first time in the industry, Pfizer has issued a warranty on crizotinib (Xalkori) and will refund the cost that was paid for the medicine if it doesn’t work within the first 3 months of use.

“Through this pilot program, Pfizer will offer a warranty to patients and health plans -- Medicare Part D, commercial and those who pay cash -- who are prescribed Xalkori for an FDA [US Food and Drug Administration]–approved indication,” said a company spokesperson.

Although Pfizer claims that its pilot program is a first in the industry, there have been others that are similar.

In 2017, Novartis offered something similar for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run healthcare system collected €200 million ($220 million) in refunds.
 

Pfizer pledge

Crizotinib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor used mainly in the treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer for patients whose tumors are positive for ALK or ROS1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication was approved a decade ago. Another indication, ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, was added earlier this year.

Details of the Pfizer Pledge are posted on Pfizer’s website. Eligible patients are those for whom crizotinib is discontinued before the fourth 30-day supply is dispensed by the patient’s pharmacy.

“The warranty will reimburse an amount equal to the cost paid for the medicine,” the spokesperson added. “The insurance-backed warranty pilot program will be insured and managed by AIG.”

This program is only available for patients who reside in the United States.

If use of crizotinib is discontinued and documentation of ineffectiveness is provided, Pfizer will refund the out-of-pocket amount that was paid for up to the first three bottles (30-day supply) of crizotinib, up to a maximum of $19,144 for each month’s supply, or a total of $57,432. Pfizer will also refund the cost that was paid by Medicare or a commercial insurer.

“Also, we have made sure to develop a program that also allows for Medicare patients to be eligible, since they are exempt from copay cards and at risk for significant financial burden when starting an oncology treatment,” said the spokesperson.

The pilot program is available to patients who began taking crizotinib from June 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.

So far, Pfizer is offering this warranty only for crizotinib, but that may change in the future.

“Once the pilot is complete, we will assess learnings and consider whether to build a more robust, scalable program capable of supporting multiple products,” the Pfizer spokesperson commented.
 

Previous scheme ended in court

Pfizer had previously tried a different approach to reducing drug costs: it had attempted to offer copay support programs to Medicare patients who were prescribed its cardiac drug tafamidis (Vyndaqe, Vyndamax).

Tafamidis, launched in 2019, is used for patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. For those patients, it has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations. It costs about $225,000 a year and has been described as the most expensive cardiovascular drug in the United States.

Earlier this month, a court dismissed Pfizer’s challenge to an anti-kickback law that prevented the company from offering copay support programs to Medicare patients.

The judge ruled that Pfizer’s plan to offer direct payments to patients violated a federal ban on “knowingly or willfully” providing financial support to induce drug purchases, even in the absence of corrupt intent.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are forbidden from subsidizing copayments for Medicare beneficiaries but are allowed to donate to independent nonprofit organizations that offer copay assistance. Pfizer sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June 2020 to get a court ruling that their proposed programs were legal.

The new pledge program for crizotinib operates from a different premise, the Pfizer spokesperson commented.

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

The high cost of new cancer drugs has been the subject of many debates and discussions, but the issue remains largely unresolved.

Now, one pharmaceutical company is offering a refund if its drug “doesn’t work.”

For what it says is the first time in the industry, Pfizer has issued a warranty on crizotinib (Xalkori) and will refund the cost that was paid for the medicine if it doesn’t work within the first 3 months of use.

“Through this pilot program, Pfizer will offer a warranty to patients and health plans -- Medicare Part D, commercial and those who pay cash -- who are prescribed Xalkori for an FDA [US Food and Drug Administration]–approved indication,” said a company spokesperson.

Although Pfizer claims that its pilot program is a first in the industry, there have been others that are similar.

In 2017, Novartis offered something similar for tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), the CAR T-cell therapy that launched with a daunting price tag of $475,000. After receiving backlash over the cost, Novartis announced that if the drug does not work after the first month, patients pay nothing.

Italy has been using this system for several years. Pharmaceutical companies must refund money if the drug fails to work. In 2015, the state-run healthcare system collected €200 million ($220 million) in refunds.
 

Pfizer pledge

Crizotinib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor used mainly in the treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer for patients whose tumors are positive for ALK or ROS1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication was approved a decade ago. Another indication, ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma, was added earlier this year.

Details of the Pfizer Pledge are posted on Pfizer’s website. Eligible patients are those for whom crizotinib is discontinued before the fourth 30-day supply is dispensed by the patient’s pharmacy.

“The warranty will reimburse an amount equal to the cost paid for the medicine,” the spokesperson added. “The insurance-backed warranty pilot program will be insured and managed by AIG.”

This program is only available for patients who reside in the United States.

If use of crizotinib is discontinued and documentation of ineffectiveness is provided, Pfizer will refund the out-of-pocket amount that was paid for up to the first three bottles (30-day supply) of crizotinib, up to a maximum of $19,144 for each month’s supply, or a total of $57,432. Pfizer will also refund the cost that was paid by Medicare or a commercial insurer.

“Also, we have made sure to develop a program that also allows for Medicare patients to be eligible, since they are exempt from copay cards and at risk for significant financial burden when starting an oncology treatment,” said the spokesperson.

The pilot program is available to patients who began taking crizotinib from June 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.

So far, Pfizer is offering this warranty only for crizotinib, but that may change in the future.

“Once the pilot is complete, we will assess learnings and consider whether to build a more robust, scalable program capable of supporting multiple products,” the Pfizer spokesperson commented.
 

Previous scheme ended in court

Pfizer had previously tried a different approach to reducing drug costs: it had attempted to offer copay support programs to Medicare patients who were prescribed its cardiac drug tafamidis (Vyndaqe, Vyndamax).

Tafamidis, launched in 2019, is used for patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. For those patients, it has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations. It costs about $225,000 a year and has been described as the most expensive cardiovascular drug in the United States.

Earlier this month, a court dismissed Pfizer’s challenge to an anti-kickback law that prevented the company from offering copay support programs to Medicare patients.

The judge ruled that Pfizer’s plan to offer direct payments to patients violated a federal ban on “knowingly or willfully” providing financial support to induce drug purchases, even in the absence of corrupt intent.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are forbidden from subsidizing copayments for Medicare beneficiaries but are allowed to donate to independent nonprofit organizations that offer copay assistance. Pfizer sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June 2020 to get a court ruling that their proposed programs were legal.

The new pledge program for crizotinib operates from a different premise, the Pfizer spokesperson commented.

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