In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriptions and insurance navigation services led 70% of people at a Detroit sexually transmitted infection clinic to ask for a PrEP prescription. But only 40% of those same people came back for a follow-up appointment, and 5 acquired HIV during the review period.

To Amanda Allmacher, DNP, RN, nurse practitioner at the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic, that means that same-day PrEP prescribing works and is acceptable. But there’s more work to do on the clinic and pharmacy side to make HIV protection a reality for most of her patients. Allmacher presented her data at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 virtual annual meeting.

Dawn K. Smith, MD, epidemiologist and medical officer in the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, said this adds to other data to show that we’re now entering the next phase of PrEP implementation.

“Our original focus was on uptake — informing folks what PrEP is, why they might benefit from its use, and then prescribing it if accepted,” Smith told Medscape Medical News via email. “Whether standard or same-day [PrEP prescribing], it is clear that uptake is only the first step.”
 

Nurses help navigate

Patients who attended the Detroit Public Health STD Clinic are more likely to be younger, have no insurance, and otherwise “have little to no contact with the healthcare system,” Allmacher said in her presentation. They also tend to come from communities that bear the greatest burden of HIV in the US — in other words, they are often the people most missed in PrEP rollouts thus far.

In response, the clinic implemented a same-day PrEP protocol, in which registered nurses trained in HIV risk assessment identify clients who might most benefit from PrEP. Criteria often include the presence of other STIs. Once the nurse explains what PrEP is and how it works, if the patient is interested, clients meet with a nurse practitioner right then to get the prescription for PrEP. The clinic also does labs to rule out current HIV infection, hepatitis B, metabolic issues, and other STI screening.

But it doesn’t stop there. The clinic used grant funding to offer PrEP navigation and financial counseling services, which help clients navigate the sometimes-thorny process of paying for PrEP. Payment comes either through Medicaid, which in Michigan charges $3 a month for a PrEP prescription, through patient assistance programs, or through private insurance. With clients under age 18 who are interested in PrEP, the clinic works to find a way to access PrEP without having to inform their parents. These same navigators schedule follow-up appointments, offer appointment reminders, and contact clients when they miss an appointment.

“Our navigators and financial counselors are a huge support for our same-day PrEP starts, helping with financial assistance, prior authorization, navigating different plans, and helping patients apply for Medicaid when appropriate,” she said.

The clinic also offers community outreach and incentives, which can include gift cards, bus passes, and pill containers, among other things.

This was a key lesson in setting up the program, Allmacher told Medscape Medical News.

“Starting PrEP at that initial visit allows for clinicians to meet patients where they are and administer care in a more equitable manner,” Allmacher said via email. “Use all available resources and funding sources. We have a versatile team working together to increase access for patients and promote HIV prevention and risk reduction.”
 

Script vs. follow-up

This approach is common, used in places like New York City and San Francisco. So once it was set up Allmacher sat back and waited to see how the program helped clients protect themselves from HIV.

Of the 451 clients eligible for PrEP in 2019, 336 were gay and bisexual men, 6 were transgender women, 61 were heterosexual, cisgender men, and 48 were cisgender women. One transgender man also screened as eligible. Allmacher did not break down data by race.

Uptake was high: 70% of all eligible clients did receive a prescription for PrEP, either generic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy). And uptake was high among people most at risk: 80% of gay and bisexual men who were eligible got a prescription, 60% of eligible cisgender women, 50% of the small number of transgender women, and 32.7% of heterosexual cisgender men did as well. The 1 transgender man also received a prescription.

This is a higher rate than found in a recent PrEP demonstration project, which found that despite gay and bisexual men, transgender adults, and Black people having the highest risk for HIV in the US, state health departments were more likely to refer heterosexual adults for PrEP.

That high uptake rate is encouraging, but follow-up? Not so much. After initial intake, clients are meant to return in a month to double-check their labs, ask about side effects, and start their 90-day supply of the medication. But just 40% showed up for their 30-day appointment, Allmacher said. And only one third of those showed up for the follow-up in 90 days.

By the end of 2019, just 73 of the original 451 clients screened were still taking PrEP.

“It was surprising to see just how significant the follow-up dropped off after that first visit, when the patient initially accepted the prescription,” Allmacher said.

And while it’s possible that some clients get their follow-up care from their primary care providers, “our clinic serves individuals regardless of insurance status and many do not identify having access to primary care for any type of service, PrEP or otherwise,” she said.
 

5 HIV acquisitions

In addition, the program review identified five clients who had been offered PrEP or had taken PrEP briefly who later acquired HIV. Those clients were offered same-day antiretroviral treatment, Allmacher said.

“So we’re finding people who are at high risk for HIV and we can prevent them, but we’re still not quite doing enough,” Allmacher said of those acquisitions. “Clearly we have a lot of work to do to focus on HIV prevention, and we are looking to create a more formal follow-up process” from the clinic’s side.

For instance, clinic staff call clients 1 week after their initial visit to share lab results. “This was identified as a missed opportunity for us to ask about their status, whether they filled their prescription, or if they need further assistance,” she said. “This is an area where our registered nurses are going to be taking on a greater role moving forward.”

Allmacher and team also discovered that, despite PrEP navigators arranging insurance coverage for clients on the day they receive their prescription, sometimes there were still barriers when the client showed up at the pharmacy to pick up their meds. The clinic does not have an in-house pharmacy and does not currently have the funding that would allow them to hand patients a bottle of the appropriate medication when they leave the clinic.

“Navigating the copays and the insurance coverage and using financial assistance through the drug manufacturer — even though we have the support in the clinic, it seems like there’s a disconnect between our clinic and getting to the pharmacy. Not every pharmacy is super familiar with navigating those,” she said. “So we have started to identify some area pharmacies near our clinic that are great at navigating these, and we really try to get our patients to go to places we know can give them assistance.”
 

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

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal

Vidyard Video

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Safety and efficiency in the laparoscopic hysterectomy: Techniques to optimize the surgical approach
• Laparoscopic management of bladder fibroids: Surgical tips and tricks
• Laparoscopic techniques for Essure device removal

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

Death while on clozapine for schizophrenia is often associated with substandard treatment of cardiometabolic risk factors, Sharon Taub, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Inadequate treatment for metabolic syndrome was found to be a mortality predictor while on clozapine therapy. Patients who died were less likely to receive appropriate treatment for hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes, despite having been diagnosed with those conditions,” she said in presenting the results of her retrospective cohort study.

“Better preventive care, with special attention to those conditions, might prevent morbidity and improve life expectancy in this population,” concluded Dr. Taub of Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University.

She reported on all 1,817 patients on clozapine for schizophrenia included in a large Israeli health care electronic medical records database, of whom 112, or 6.2%, died during 2 years of follow-up. Mortality while on the atypical antipsychotic was associated with a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, known ischemic heart disease, and a history of acute MI, compared with survivors.

Notably, patients who died on clozapine were markedly less likely to be on indicated statin therapy for their hyperlipidemia, by a margin of 13.7% to 52.9%. Similarly, only 16.3% of those known to have type 2 diabetes who died while on clozapine were on hypoglycemic agents, compared with 67.1% of diabetic survivors. The between-group difference in the use of antihypertensive drug therapy for patients diagnosed with hypertension – 28.6% in nonsurvivors on clozapine, 40.1% in survivors – did not achieve statistical significance.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, schizophrenia patients with type 2 diabetes who weren’t on hypoglycemic medication were at 695% increased risk of mortality, compared with those who were. Similarly, hyperlipidemic patients on clozapine who weren’t on a statin had a 579% increase in mortality risk.

Patients who died while on clozapine had no increased risk of use of medical services while living in the community.

This evidence of a pattern of inadequate care with regard to management of cardiometabolic risk factors in patients on clozapine is disturbing for several reasons. For one, clozapine is known to be associated with increased risk of serious side effects, including development or worsening of metabolic syndrome. Also, clozapine is an important drug in psychiatric practice: “Clozapine is the only antipsychotic indicated for refractory schizophrenia. It is highly effective in treatment-resistant disease, present in 25%-30% of individuals with schizophrenia,” Dr. Taub noted. “Clozapine is underused, mostly because of severe side effects. Its administration is often postponed.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was voted by conference attendees one of the top presentations at ECNP 2020.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Death while on clozapine for schizophrenia is often associated with substandard treatment of cardiometabolic risk factors, Sharon Taub, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Inadequate treatment for metabolic syndrome was found to be a mortality predictor while on clozapine therapy. Patients who died were less likely to receive appropriate treatment for hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes, despite having been diagnosed with those conditions,” she said in presenting the results of her retrospective cohort study.

“Better preventive care, with special attention to those conditions, might prevent morbidity and improve life expectancy in this population,” concluded Dr. Taub of Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University.

She reported on all 1,817 patients on clozapine for schizophrenia included in a large Israeli health care electronic medical records database, of whom 112, or 6.2%, died during 2 years of follow-up. Mortality while on the atypical antipsychotic was associated with a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, known ischemic heart disease, and a history of acute MI, compared with survivors.

Notably, patients who died on clozapine were markedly less likely to be on indicated statin therapy for their hyperlipidemia, by a margin of 13.7% to 52.9%. Similarly, only 16.3% of those known to have type 2 diabetes who died while on clozapine were on hypoglycemic agents, compared with 67.1% of diabetic survivors. The between-group difference in the use of antihypertensive drug therapy for patients diagnosed with hypertension – 28.6% in nonsurvivors on clozapine, 40.1% in survivors – did not achieve statistical significance.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, schizophrenia patients with type 2 diabetes who weren’t on hypoglycemic medication were at 695% increased risk of mortality, compared with those who were. Similarly, hyperlipidemic patients on clozapine who weren’t on a statin had a 579% increase in mortality risk.

Patients who died while on clozapine had no increased risk of use of medical services while living in the community.

This evidence of a pattern of inadequate care with regard to management of cardiometabolic risk factors in patients on clozapine is disturbing for several reasons. For one, clozapine is known to be associated with increased risk of serious side effects, including development or worsening of metabolic syndrome. Also, clozapine is an important drug in psychiatric practice: “Clozapine is the only antipsychotic indicated for refractory schizophrenia. It is highly effective in treatment-resistant disease, present in 25%-30% of individuals with schizophrenia,” Dr. Taub noted. “Clozapine is underused, mostly because of severe side effects. Its administration is often postponed.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was voted by conference attendees one of the top presentations at ECNP 2020.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Death while on clozapine for schizophrenia is often associated with substandard treatment of cardiometabolic risk factors, Sharon Taub, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Inadequate treatment for metabolic syndrome was found to be a mortality predictor while on clozapine therapy. Patients who died were less likely to receive appropriate treatment for hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes, despite having been diagnosed with those conditions,” she said in presenting the results of her retrospective cohort study.

“Better preventive care, with special attention to those conditions, might prevent morbidity and improve life expectancy in this population,” concluded Dr. Taub of Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University.

She reported on all 1,817 patients on clozapine for schizophrenia included in a large Israeli health care electronic medical records database, of whom 112, or 6.2%, died during 2 years of follow-up. Mortality while on the atypical antipsychotic was associated with a higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, known ischemic heart disease, and a history of acute MI, compared with survivors.

Notably, patients who died on clozapine were markedly less likely to be on indicated statin therapy for their hyperlipidemia, by a margin of 13.7% to 52.9%. Similarly, only 16.3% of those known to have type 2 diabetes who died while on clozapine were on hypoglycemic agents, compared with 67.1% of diabetic survivors. The between-group difference in the use of antihypertensive drug therapy for patients diagnosed with hypertension – 28.6% in nonsurvivors on clozapine, 40.1% in survivors – did not achieve statistical significance.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, schizophrenia patients with type 2 diabetes who weren’t on hypoglycemic medication were at 695% increased risk of mortality, compared with those who were. Similarly, hyperlipidemic patients on clozapine who weren’t on a statin had a 579% increase in mortality risk.

Patients who died while on clozapine had no increased risk of use of medical services while living in the community.

This evidence of a pattern of inadequate care with regard to management of cardiometabolic risk factors in patients on clozapine is disturbing for several reasons. For one, clozapine is known to be associated with increased risk of serious side effects, including development or worsening of metabolic syndrome. Also, clozapine is an important drug in psychiatric practice: “Clozapine is the only antipsychotic indicated for refractory schizophrenia. It is highly effective in treatment-resistant disease, present in 25%-30% of individuals with schizophrenia,” Dr. Taub noted. “Clozapine is underused, mostly because of severe side effects. Its administration is often postponed.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was voted by conference attendees one of the top presentations at ECNP 2020.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Telehealth is widely accepted among individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) and the physicians who treat them, according to three new studies. The surveys examined attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation of the survey, but the results nevertheless bode well for telehealth’s future in the management of CF.

FatCamera/E+

“Patients could be responding positively just because they could have a visit during the pandemic,” said Andrew NeSmith, during a presentation of a survey of adults with CF at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference. Mr. NeSmith is the clinical data coordinator at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cystic Fibrosis Center.

Other posters at the conference examined attitudes among pediatric populations and treating physicians, with generally positive results, which has generated optimism that telehealth could become an important element of care after the pandemic fades. “This data suggests that telehealth could be integrated into routine follow-up care in the CF chronic care model,” said Mr. NeSmith.

His team collected responses from 119 individuals at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Boston Children’s Hospital; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and West Virginia University, Morgantown. A total of 28% had conducted a prior telehealth visit before the study; 92% of visits were conducted with a medical doctor. Only 13% reported experiencing difficulties with their first telehealth visit. Eighty-five percent rated convenience, and 77% rated their satisfaction with telehealth as “high.” Most (92%) said they were able to see their desired disciplines, 95% felt all of their issues had been addressed, and 83% strongly agreed that telehealth visits were of adequate length.

Not everything was rosy. A total of 48% of participants expressed at least moderate concern over a lack of pulmonary function test or throat/sputum culture. There were much fewer concerns over missing vital signs or weight measurements.

The overall results weren’t surprising to Robert Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center, New York, who was not involved in the study. “I was expecting that patients were going to like it. It makes their life easier,” he said in an interview.

A survey of families of pediatric individuals with CF at seven centers found similar levels of satisfaction. A total of 23% had used telehealth previously; 96% rated convenience, and 93% rated satisfaction as “high.” Almost all (99%) felt that all concerns were met, 98% said that sessions were adequately long, and 87% had no trouble connecting to the visit.

Some participants in this survey had concerns about what might be missing with a televisit. Half (52%) had at least a moderate concern over lack of pulmonary function tests, 45% over lack of vital signs, 29% about lack of weight measurements, and 64% about the need for throat/sputum culture. Despite those issues, 69% preferred that “some” and 22% preferred that “most” future visits be conducted by telehealth.

A survey of physicians who used telehealth with CF patients also found broad support. They reported some challenges, with 70% saying they experienced technical difficulty, and 77% saying it “took time” to resolve a visit with only 18% reporting that visits were “quickly resolved.” Most (86%) said they were satisfied with telehealth for care delivery, and 78% said it was appropriate for most patients. Most said telehealth improved the patient-physician relationship, and they believed visits were more efficient when conducted via telehealth than in person. A majority (81%) endorsed using telehealth for some visits, and 12% for most visits.

A key question will be how telehealth affects patient outcomes, according to Ryan Perkins, MD, who was a coauthor of the survey of physicians. “If they’re not doing as well from an outcomes perspective, that would be a huge limitation to our patients,” said Dr. Perkins, who is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Although the study examined only models of care that were entirely virtual, Dr. Perkins noted that hybrid in-person/virtual care models are also possible. “Do we have better outcomes doing it that way? Is there higher patient satisfaction? I’m sure that will be a hot topic moving forward.”

Dr. Perkins noted that patients expressed concern about not being able to get sputum cultures and spirometry recordings during telehealth sessions. “That’s not really surprising to me, but I think it raises the question as we’re imagining care models for the future – how can we implement those components into future care delivery?”

Another hurdle will be insurance coverage. “My fear is that insurance companies are going to cut down the amount of reimbursement for telehealth visits in the future and just going to make it more complicated,” said Dr. Giusti. “Certainly, though, I think telehealth is an important outreach that we’d like to continue with our patients.”

Mr. NeSmith, Dr. Giusti, and Dr. Perkins reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: NeSmith A et al. NACFC 2020, Abstracts 797, 799, 810.

Telehealth is widely accepted among individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) and the physicians who treat them, according to three new studies. The surveys examined attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation of the survey, but the results nevertheless bode well for telehealth’s future in the management of CF.

FatCamera/E+

“Patients could be responding positively just because they could have a visit during the pandemic,” said Andrew NeSmith, during a presentation of a survey of adults with CF at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference. Mr. NeSmith is the clinical data coordinator at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cystic Fibrosis Center.

Other posters at the conference examined attitudes among pediatric populations and treating physicians, with generally positive results, which has generated optimism that telehealth could become an important element of care after the pandemic fades. “This data suggests that telehealth could be integrated into routine follow-up care in the CF chronic care model,” said Mr. NeSmith.

His team collected responses from 119 individuals at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Boston Children’s Hospital; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and West Virginia University, Morgantown. A total of 28% had conducted a prior telehealth visit before the study; 92% of visits were conducted with a medical doctor. Only 13% reported experiencing difficulties with their first telehealth visit. Eighty-five percent rated convenience, and 77% rated their satisfaction with telehealth as “high.” Most (92%) said they were able to see their desired disciplines, 95% felt all of their issues had been addressed, and 83% strongly agreed that telehealth visits were of adequate length.

Not everything was rosy. A total of 48% of participants expressed at least moderate concern over a lack of pulmonary function test or throat/sputum culture. There were much fewer concerns over missing vital signs or weight measurements.

The overall results weren’t surprising to Robert Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center, New York, who was not involved in the study. “I was expecting that patients were going to like it. It makes their life easier,” he said in an interview.

A survey of families of pediatric individuals with CF at seven centers found similar levels of satisfaction. A total of 23% had used telehealth previously; 96% rated convenience, and 93% rated satisfaction as “high.” Almost all (99%) felt that all concerns were met, 98% said that sessions were adequately long, and 87% had no trouble connecting to the visit.

Some participants in this survey had concerns about what might be missing with a televisit. Half (52%) had at least a moderate concern over lack of pulmonary function tests, 45% over lack of vital signs, 29% about lack of weight measurements, and 64% about the need for throat/sputum culture. Despite those issues, 69% preferred that “some” and 22% preferred that “most” future visits be conducted by telehealth.

A survey of physicians who used telehealth with CF patients also found broad support. They reported some challenges, with 70% saying they experienced technical difficulty, and 77% saying it “took time” to resolve a visit with only 18% reporting that visits were “quickly resolved.” Most (86%) said they were satisfied with telehealth for care delivery, and 78% said it was appropriate for most patients. Most said telehealth improved the patient-physician relationship, and they believed visits were more efficient when conducted via telehealth than in person. A majority (81%) endorsed using telehealth for some visits, and 12% for most visits.

A key question will be how telehealth affects patient outcomes, according to Ryan Perkins, MD, who was a coauthor of the survey of physicians. “If they’re not doing as well from an outcomes perspective, that would be a huge limitation to our patients,” said Dr. Perkins, who is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Although the study examined only models of care that were entirely virtual, Dr. Perkins noted that hybrid in-person/virtual care models are also possible. “Do we have better outcomes doing it that way? Is there higher patient satisfaction? I’m sure that will be a hot topic moving forward.”

Dr. Perkins noted that patients expressed concern about not being able to get sputum cultures and spirometry recordings during telehealth sessions. “That’s not really surprising to me, but I think it raises the question as we’re imagining care models for the future – how can we implement those components into future care delivery?”

Another hurdle will be insurance coverage. “My fear is that insurance companies are going to cut down the amount of reimbursement for telehealth visits in the future and just going to make it more complicated,” said Dr. Giusti. “Certainly, though, I think telehealth is an important outreach that we’d like to continue with our patients.”

Mr. NeSmith, Dr. Giusti, and Dr. Perkins reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: NeSmith A et al. NACFC 2020, Abstracts 797, 799, 810.

Telehealth is widely accepted among individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) and the physicians who treat them, according to three new studies. The surveys examined attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation of the survey, but the results nevertheless bode well for telehealth’s future in the management of CF.

FatCamera/E+

“Patients could be responding positively just because they could have a visit during the pandemic,” said Andrew NeSmith, during a presentation of a survey of adults with CF at the virtual North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference. Mr. NeSmith is the clinical data coordinator at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cystic Fibrosis Center.

Other posters at the conference examined attitudes among pediatric populations and treating physicians, with generally positive results, which has generated optimism that telehealth could become an important element of care after the pandemic fades. “This data suggests that telehealth could be integrated into routine follow-up care in the CF chronic care model,” said Mr. NeSmith.

His team collected responses from 119 individuals at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Boston Children’s Hospital; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and West Virginia University, Morgantown. A total of 28% had conducted a prior telehealth visit before the study; 92% of visits were conducted with a medical doctor. Only 13% reported experiencing difficulties with their first telehealth visit. Eighty-five percent rated convenience, and 77% rated their satisfaction with telehealth as “high.” Most (92%) said they were able to see their desired disciplines, 95% felt all of their issues had been addressed, and 83% strongly agreed that telehealth visits were of adequate length.

Not everything was rosy. A total of 48% of participants expressed at least moderate concern over a lack of pulmonary function test or throat/sputum culture. There were much fewer concerns over missing vital signs or weight measurements.

The overall results weren’t surprising to Robert Giusti, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University and director of the Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Center, New York, who was not involved in the study. “I was expecting that patients were going to like it. It makes their life easier,” he said in an interview.

A survey of families of pediatric individuals with CF at seven centers found similar levels of satisfaction. A total of 23% had used telehealth previously; 96% rated convenience, and 93% rated satisfaction as “high.” Almost all (99%) felt that all concerns were met, 98% said that sessions were adequately long, and 87% had no trouble connecting to the visit.

Some participants in this survey had concerns about what might be missing with a televisit. Half (52%) had at least a moderate concern over lack of pulmonary function tests, 45% over lack of vital signs, 29% about lack of weight measurements, and 64% about the need for throat/sputum culture. Despite those issues, 69% preferred that “some” and 22% preferred that “most” future visits be conducted by telehealth.

A survey of physicians who used telehealth with CF patients also found broad support. They reported some challenges, with 70% saying they experienced technical difficulty, and 77% saying it “took time” to resolve a visit with only 18% reporting that visits were “quickly resolved.” Most (86%) said they were satisfied with telehealth for care delivery, and 78% said it was appropriate for most patients. Most said telehealth improved the patient-physician relationship, and they believed visits were more efficient when conducted via telehealth than in person. A majority (81%) endorsed using telehealth for some visits, and 12% for most visits.

A key question will be how telehealth affects patient outcomes, according to Ryan Perkins, MD, who was a coauthor of the survey of physicians. “If they’re not doing as well from an outcomes perspective, that would be a huge limitation to our patients,” said Dr. Perkins, who is a pediatric and adult pulmonary fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Although the study examined only models of care that were entirely virtual, Dr. Perkins noted that hybrid in-person/virtual care models are also possible. “Do we have better outcomes doing it that way? Is there higher patient satisfaction? I’m sure that will be a hot topic moving forward.”

Dr. Perkins noted that patients expressed concern about not being able to get sputum cultures and spirometry recordings during telehealth sessions. “That’s not really surprising to me, but I think it raises the question as we’re imagining care models for the future – how can we implement those components into future care delivery?”

Another hurdle will be insurance coverage. “My fear is that insurance companies are going to cut down the amount of reimbursement for telehealth visits in the future and just going to make it more complicated,” said Dr. Giusti. “Certainly, though, I think telehealth is an important outreach that we’d like to continue with our patients.”

Mr. NeSmith, Dr. Giusti, and Dr. Perkins reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: NeSmith A et al. NACFC 2020, Abstracts 797, 799, 810.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.

Oral agents are taking on an ever-greater role in the management of gynecologic cancers. However, women being treated for these cancers have less than ideal adherence to such medications, a new study has found – with just over half reporting taking them exactly as prescribed.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

The findings reported in Obstetrics & Gynecology are consistent with reports from other populations taking oral anticancer agents, in which adherence is generally lower than with intravenous therapies.

For their research, Catherine Watson, MD, and colleagues at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recruited 100 women at their institution taking a variety of oral anticancer agents for uterine or ovarian cancer for 30 days or more (median time, 6 months). The women answered a questionnaire that measured adherence as well as health literacy, quality of life, and distress. The researchers also collected information on the subjects’ race, age, insurance type, medication burden, and medication costs.

Fourteen of the women in the study additionally underwent qualitative interviews about their experiences with oral anticancer drugs. The researchers also queried physicians and nurse practitioners about their thoughts on adherence.

Dr. Watson and colleagues reported that 54% of women self-reported perfect adherence to their medication in the previous week, while 21% had missed or skipped one dose, and 25% reported skipping or missing more than one dose.

The researchers saw no significant differences between the adherent and nonadherent groups corresponding with race, age, or other demographic or clinical characteristics, but they noted that their study was not powered to detect such associations. The small sample size and self-reported data were among this study’s limitations, Dr. Watson and colleagues acknowledged.

Interviews with patients revealed some surprising reasons for the less-than-optimal adherence, with 43% of women reporting feeling anxiety about the burden of administering medication at home. While patients acknowledged the convenience of oral regimens, some also expressed a wish for more physician contact and support. Some women who were nonadherent said they perceived the efficacy of oral agents to be less than intravenous therapies.

Physicians and nurse practitioners interviewed by the researchers “tended to assume that their patients were adherent to oral anticancer therapy because of the therapy’s importance, and many did not routinely ask their patients about adherence,” Dr. Watson and colleagues wrote.

Emma Rossi, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, commented in an interview that the study highlighted “the importance of not generalizing our perception of patients. As providers we have to spend the time asking patients where they’re at and how they’re thinking about taking an oral medication, with special attention to their fears, their expectations, and their concerns. We should be touching base with them not just before starting drugs, but during the course of treatment.”

Dr. Rossi stressed that compliance in real-life settings is likely to be different from that seen in clinical trials of oral anticancer drugs. “It’s important to recognize that real-world efficacy of treatments may be different from trial efficacy. We see these differences a lot in medicine where studies show a large magnitude of effect that doesn’t play out in real life practice – because of factors like this.”

Some 57% of the women in the study were taking their medications as maintenance, while the rest were taking the medications as active treatment. This too might have an effect on adherence, she said, with the active-treatment group potentially more motivated to maintain perfect adherence.

“You see in the interviews that doctors assume patients would be compliant because of the seriousness of the disease,” Dr. Rossi said. “But some patients said they perceived oral drugs as less strong or effective. If a patient is cancer free on a scan and doesn’t have measurable disease, prescribing an oral medication may be sending the subliminal message that it’s not as important.”

Physicians “may need to take the extra steps to individualize our counseling of patients – especially with therapies that they’re responsible for administering,” Dr. Rossi continued. “As this study shows, every patient sees treatment through her own individual lens. We really need to meet them where they’re at to make them comfortable with their treatment and optimize compliance.”

Dr. Watson and colleagues’ study was supported by their institution. One coauthor reported financial ties with drug manufacturers in the form of grant and clinical trial support and honoraria. Another coauthor is the member of various boards and steering committees, which are uncompensated. Dr. Rossi reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Watson C et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004170.