Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now