Bruce Jancin

Treatment with oral tafamidis at 80 mg/day provided a significantly greater survival benefit than dosing at 20 mg/day in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy in the long-term extension of the landmark ATTR-ACT trial, Thibaud Damy, MD, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

Moreover, the superior survival benefit achieved by taking four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis (Vyndaqel) once daily – or its more convenient once-daily, single-capsule, 61-mg bioequivalent formulation marketed as Vyndamax – came at no cost in terms of side effects and toxicity, compared with low-dose therapy for this progressive multisystem disease, according to Dr. Damy, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and head of the French National Referral Center for Cardiac Amyloidosis at Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France.

“There are no side effects with tafamidis,” he said. “It doesn’t act on any receptors, it just acts on the formation of amyloid fibrils, so there are no side effects at whatever dosage is used. And in ATTR-ACT there was actually a trend towards increased side effects in the placebo group because the amyloidosis is everywhere, so by decreasing the amyloidosis process you improve not only the heart but all the organs, and the patient has a better quality of life.”

ATTR-ACT (Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial) was a phase 3, double-blind study in which 441 patients with transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (TAC) in 13 countries were randomized to tafamidis at either 80 mg or 20 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a statistically significant and clinically important 30% relative risk reduction, establishing tafamidis as the first disease-modifying therapy for this disease (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 13;379[11]:1007-16).

Patients in the 80-mg group had a 20% reduction in the risk of death, compared with the 20-mg group, at 30 months in an analysis adjusted for baseline age, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, all of which are known to impact survival in TAC. This between-group survival difference wasn’t statistically significant, providing one impetus for the subsequent long-term extension study, in which patients remained on their original dose of tafamidis, and the controls who’d been on placebo for 30 months were randomized 2:1 to tafamidis at 80 mg or 20 mg per day.

The primary endpoint in the long-term extension was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. At a median follow-up of 39 months since ATTR-ACT began, the high-dose tafamidis group had an adjusted 33% reduction in the risk of this endpoint, compared with patients on 20 mg per day, a difference that barely missed statistical significance. At that point, everyone in the long-term extension was switched to the once-daily 61-mg formulation of tafamidis free acid, which is bioequivalent to four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis.

Dr. Damy’s key message: At a median of 51 months of follow-up, the group originally on 80 mg of tafamidis displayed a highly significant adjusted 43% reduction in risk of the composite endpoint, compared with those who had been on 20 mg per day.

Session chair Petar M. Seferovic, MD, PhD, pronounced the ATTR-ACT trial and its long-term extension “a breakthrough advancement.”

“This is the first time in human medical history that we have a drug which improves the long-term outcome, including survival, in patients with this form of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. So this is extremely important. It’s one of the major steps forward in the treatment of patients with myocardial disease,” said Dr. Seferovic, president of the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association and professor of internal medicine at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Discussant Loreena Hill, PhD, of Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, observed that TAC is a devastating disease with a formidable symptom burden and an average survival of just 2-5 years after diagnosis.

“It is often underdiagnosed, and yet it is estimated to account for up to 13% of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction,” she said, adding that she considers the long-term extension results “extremely positive.”
 

Nailing down the prevalence of hereditary TAC: the DISCOVERY study

TAC occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium and elsewhere. In the heart, the result is progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive nonischemic heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild-type protein.

Dr. Damy was a coinvestigator in the recently published multicenter DISCOVERY study, in which 1,001 patients with clinically suspected cardiac amyloidosis, the great majority of them from the United States, were screened for pathogenic transthyretin genetic mutations. The overall prevalence of such mutations was 8% in the American patients, with the Val122Ile mutation being identified in 11% of African Americans (Amyloid. 2020 May 26;1-8).

The prevalence of wild-type amyloidosis causing TAC hasn’t yet been studied with anything approaching the rigor of DISCOVERY, but the available evidence suggests the wild-type version is roughly as common as the hereditary forms.

Although DISCOVERY and other studies indicate that TAC is far more common than generally realized, Pfizer has priced Vyndaqel and Vyndamax as though TAC is a rare disease, with a U.S. list price of around $225,000 per year.

“Obviously, the cost will go down over time,” Dr. Seferovic predicted.
 

Diagnosing TAC

Audience members mostly wanted to know how to identify individuals with TAC who are buried within the huge population of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Dr. Damy said it’s actually a simple matter using a screening framework developed by an 11-member TAC expert panel on which he served. A definitive diagnosis can usually be achieved noninvasively at a low cost using bone scintigraphy, he added.

The panel recommended screening via bone scintigraphy in patients with an increased left ventricular wall thickness of 14 mm or more in men over age 65 and women older than 70 who either have heart failure or red flag symptoms.

These red flags for TAC include an echocardiographic finding of reduced longitudinal strain with relative apical sparing, a discrepancy between left ventricular wall thickness on imaging and normal or low-normal voltages on a standard 12-lead ECG, diffuse gadolinium enhancement or marked extracellular volume expansion on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, a history of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, symptoms of polyneuropathy, and mildly increased serum troponin levels on multiple occasions (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Aug;7[8]:709-16).

Dr. Damy reported receiving institutional research grant support from Pfizer, the study sponsor, and serving on a scientific advisory board for the company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Treatment with oral tafamidis at 80 mg/day provided a significantly greater survival benefit than dosing at 20 mg/day in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy in the long-term extension of the landmark ATTR-ACT trial, Thibaud Damy, MD, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

Moreover, the superior survival benefit achieved by taking four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis (Vyndaqel) once daily – or its more convenient once-daily, single-capsule, 61-mg bioequivalent formulation marketed as Vyndamax – came at no cost in terms of side effects and toxicity, compared with low-dose therapy for this progressive multisystem disease, according to Dr. Damy, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and head of the French National Referral Center for Cardiac Amyloidosis at Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France.

“There are no side effects with tafamidis,” he said. “It doesn’t act on any receptors, it just acts on the formation of amyloid fibrils, so there are no side effects at whatever dosage is used. And in ATTR-ACT there was actually a trend towards increased side effects in the placebo group because the amyloidosis is everywhere, so by decreasing the amyloidosis process you improve not only the heart but all the organs, and the patient has a better quality of life.”

ATTR-ACT (Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial) was a phase 3, double-blind study in which 441 patients with transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (TAC) in 13 countries were randomized to tafamidis at either 80 mg or 20 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a statistically significant and clinically important 30% relative risk reduction, establishing tafamidis as the first disease-modifying therapy for this disease (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 13;379[11]:1007-16).

Patients in the 80-mg group had a 20% reduction in the risk of death, compared with the 20-mg group, at 30 months in an analysis adjusted for baseline age, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, all of which are known to impact survival in TAC. This between-group survival difference wasn’t statistically significant, providing one impetus for the subsequent long-term extension study, in which patients remained on their original dose of tafamidis, and the controls who’d been on placebo for 30 months were randomized 2:1 to tafamidis at 80 mg or 20 mg per day.

The primary endpoint in the long-term extension was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. At a median follow-up of 39 months since ATTR-ACT began, the high-dose tafamidis group had an adjusted 33% reduction in the risk of this endpoint, compared with patients on 20 mg per day, a difference that barely missed statistical significance. At that point, everyone in the long-term extension was switched to the once-daily 61-mg formulation of tafamidis free acid, which is bioequivalent to four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis.

Dr. Damy’s key message: At a median of 51 months of follow-up, the group originally on 80 mg of tafamidis displayed a highly significant adjusted 43% reduction in risk of the composite endpoint, compared with those who had been on 20 mg per day.

Session chair Petar M. Seferovic, MD, PhD, pronounced the ATTR-ACT trial and its long-term extension “a breakthrough advancement.”

“This is the first time in human medical history that we have a drug which improves the long-term outcome, including survival, in patients with this form of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. So this is extremely important. It’s one of the major steps forward in the treatment of patients with myocardial disease,” said Dr. Seferovic, president of the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association and professor of internal medicine at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Discussant Loreena Hill, PhD, of Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, observed that TAC is a devastating disease with a formidable symptom burden and an average survival of just 2-5 years after diagnosis.

“It is often underdiagnosed, and yet it is estimated to account for up to 13% of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction,” she said, adding that she considers the long-term extension results “extremely positive.”
 

Nailing down the prevalence of hereditary TAC: the DISCOVERY study

TAC occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium and elsewhere. In the heart, the result is progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive nonischemic heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild-type protein.

Dr. Damy was a coinvestigator in the recently published multicenter DISCOVERY study, in which 1,001 patients with clinically suspected cardiac amyloidosis, the great majority of them from the United States, were screened for pathogenic transthyretin genetic mutations. The overall prevalence of such mutations was 8% in the American patients, with the Val122Ile mutation being identified in 11% of African Americans (Amyloid. 2020 May 26;1-8).

The prevalence of wild-type amyloidosis causing TAC hasn’t yet been studied with anything approaching the rigor of DISCOVERY, but the available evidence suggests the wild-type version is roughly as common as the hereditary forms.

Although DISCOVERY and other studies indicate that TAC is far more common than generally realized, Pfizer has priced Vyndaqel and Vyndamax as though TAC is a rare disease, with a U.S. list price of around $225,000 per year.

“Obviously, the cost will go down over time,” Dr. Seferovic predicted.
 

Diagnosing TAC

Audience members mostly wanted to know how to identify individuals with TAC who are buried within the huge population of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Dr. Damy said it’s actually a simple matter using a screening framework developed by an 11-member TAC expert panel on which he served. A definitive diagnosis can usually be achieved noninvasively at a low cost using bone scintigraphy, he added.

The panel recommended screening via bone scintigraphy in patients with an increased left ventricular wall thickness of 14 mm or more in men over age 65 and women older than 70 who either have heart failure or red flag symptoms.

These red flags for TAC include an echocardiographic finding of reduced longitudinal strain with relative apical sparing, a discrepancy between left ventricular wall thickness on imaging and normal or low-normal voltages on a standard 12-lead ECG, diffuse gadolinium enhancement or marked extracellular volume expansion on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, a history of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, symptoms of polyneuropathy, and mildly increased serum troponin levels on multiple occasions (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Aug;7[8]:709-16).

Dr. Damy reported receiving institutional research grant support from Pfizer, the study sponsor, and serving on a scientific advisory board for the company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Treatment with oral tafamidis at 80 mg/day provided a significantly greater survival benefit than dosing at 20 mg/day in patients with transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy in the long-term extension of the landmark ATTR-ACT trial, Thibaud Damy, MD, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.

Moreover, the superior survival benefit achieved by taking four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis (Vyndaqel) once daily – or its more convenient once-daily, single-capsule, 61-mg bioequivalent formulation marketed as Vyndamax – came at no cost in terms of side effects and toxicity, compared with low-dose therapy for this progressive multisystem disease, according to Dr. Damy, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris and head of the French National Referral Center for Cardiac Amyloidosis at Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France.

“There are no side effects with tafamidis,” he said. “It doesn’t act on any receptors, it just acts on the formation of amyloid fibrils, so there are no side effects at whatever dosage is used. And in ATTR-ACT there was actually a trend towards increased side effects in the placebo group because the amyloidosis is everywhere, so by decreasing the amyloidosis process you improve not only the heart but all the organs, and the patient has a better quality of life.”

ATTR-ACT (Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial) was a phase 3, double-blind study in which 441 patients with transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (TAC) in 13 countries were randomized to tafamidis at either 80 mg or 20 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a statistically significant and clinically important 30% relative risk reduction, establishing tafamidis as the first disease-modifying therapy for this disease (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 13;379[11]:1007-16).

Patients in the 80-mg group had a 20% reduction in the risk of death, compared with the 20-mg group, at 30 months in an analysis adjusted for baseline age, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, all of which are known to impact survival in TAC. This between-group survival difference wasn’t statistically significant, providing one impetus for the subsequent long-term extension study, in which patients remained on their original dose of tafamidis, and the controls who’d been on placebo for 30 months were randomized 2:1 to tafamidis at 80 mg or 20 mg per day.

The primary endpoint in the long-term extension was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. At a median follow-up of 39 months since ATTR-ACT began, the high-dose tafamidis group had an adjusted 33% reduction in the risk of this endpoint, compared with patients on 20 mg per day, a difference that barely missed statistical significance. At that point, everyone in the long-term extension was switched to the once-daily 61-mg formulation of tafamidis free acid, which is bioequivalent to four 20-mg capsules of tafamidis.

Dr. Damy’s key message: At a median of 51 months of follow-up, the group originally on 80 mg of tafamidis displayed a highly significant adjusted 43% reduction in risk of the composite endpoint, compared with those who had been on 20 mg per day.

Session chair Petar M. Seferovic, MD, PhD, pronounced the ATTR-ACT trial and its long-term extension “a breakthrough advancement.”

“This is the first time in human medical history that we have a drug which improves the long-term outcome, including survival, in patients with this form of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. So this is extremely important. It’s one of the major steps forward in the treatment of patients with myocardial disease,” said Dr. Seferovic, president of the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association and professor of internal medicine at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Discussant Loreena Hill, PhD, of Queen’s University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, observed that TAC is a devastating disease with a formidable symptom burden and an average survival of just 2-5 years after diagnosis.

“It is often underdiagnosed, and yet it is estimated to account for up to 13% of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction,” she said, adding that she considers the long-term extension results “extremely positive.”
 

Nailing down the prevalence of hereditary TAC: the DISCOVERY study

TAC occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium and elsewhere. In the heart, the result is progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive nonischemic heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild-type protein.

Dr. Damy was a coinvestigator in the recently published multicenter DISCOVERY study, in which 1,001 patients with clinically suspected cardiac amyloidosis, the great majority of them from the United States, were screened for pathogenic transthyretin genetic mutations. The overall prevalence of such mutations was 8% in the American patients, with the Val122Ile mutation being identified in 11% of African Americans (Amyloid. 2020 May 26;1-8).

The prevalence of wild-type amyloidosis causing TAC hasn’t yet been studied with anything approaching the rigor of DISCOVERY, but the available evidence suggests the wild-type version is roughly as common as the hereditary forms.

Although DISCOVERY and other studies indicate that TAC is far more common than generally realized, Pfizer has priced Vyndaqel and Vyndamax as though TAC is a rare disease, with a U.S. list price of around $225,000 per year.

“Obviously, the cost will go down over time,” Dr. Seferovic predicted.
 

Diagnosing TAC

Audience members mostly wanted to know how to identify individuals with TAC who are buried within the huge population of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Dr. Damy said it’s actually a simple matter using a screening framework developed by an 11-member TAC expert panel on which he served. A definitive diagnosis can usually be achieved noninvasively at a low cost using bone scintigraphy, he added.

The panel recommended screening via bone scintigraphy in patients with an increased left ventricular wall thickness of 14 mm or more in men over age 65 and women older than 70 who either have heart failure or red flag symptoms.

These red flags for TAC include an echocardiographic finding of reduced longitudinal strain with relative apical sparing, a discrepancy between left ventricular wall thickness on imaging and normal or low-normal voltages on a standard 12-lead ECG, diffuse gadolinium enhancement or marked extracellular volume expansion on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, a history of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, symptoms of polyneuropathy, and mildly increased serum troponin levels on multiple occasions (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Aug;7[8]:709-16).

Dr. Damy reported receiving institutional research grant support from Pfizer, the study sponsor, and serving on a scientific advisory board for the company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The three oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) approved last year in the United States haven’t made a big splash in the marketplace. So far, it’s more like a ripple, according to a study of neurologists’ prescribing patterns. “The recently approved therapies will initially be niched as later-line options,” predicted Virginia R. Schobel, MSc, nephrology franchise head at Spherix Global Insights, an independent market intelligence firm in Exton, Pa.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Ms. Schobel presented the results of a retrospective chart audit Spherix conducted in February 2020 of 1,006 patients with MS who were switched to a new DMT by 199 U.S. participating neurologists within the previous 3 months. About 72% of the switchers had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS).
 

Assessing the three new oral DMTs

The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the early adoption patterns for the three recently approved oral DMTs: siponimod (Mayzent), cladribine (Mavenclad), and diroximel fumarate (Vumerity).

The first surprise was that only 41% of medication switches to a new DMT among the RRMS group were to oral DMTs; that’s a substantially lower proportion than in prior Spherix chart audits. Instead, the most popular switch was to ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), a monoclonal antibody.

“Things to keep in mind when we see the switch shares for the newer products are just how crowded this market has become and how much Ocrevus has really changed the market,” Ms. Schobel explained in an interview. “Ocrevus has become increasingly dominant in the RRMS segment, so that now there are six oral DMTs competing among themselves for a relatively limited pool of patients.”

Because of grandfathering by the Food and Drug Administration, most of the oral DMTs now share identical indications for clinically isolated syndrome, RRMS, and active secondary progressive MS. Ocrevus, she noted, has the same indications.

Only 1% of MS patients who switched to a different DMT in late 2019 or early 2020 moved to diroximel fumarate. Three percent switched to siponimod, and another 3% switched to cladribine. Switches to the three older, established oral DMTs were collectively five times more common, with 15% of patients moving to dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), 11% to fingolimod (Gilenya), and 9% to teriflunomide (Aubagio).

Ms. Schobel said that the three latest oral DMTs offer advantages over the older ones in terms of various combinations of efficacy, dosing schedule, and/or tolerability, which may make them attractive options as first-line therapy. She predicted that, over time as neurologists gain increasing familiarity with these drugs as first line, they will also gradually become more comfortable in turning to them as switch options.

First-time switches to an oral DMT among patients with RRMS were most often made in search of improved efficacy. Neurologists cited this as their main reason for 73% of switches to cladribine and 36% of switches to teriflunomide, with the other oral agents falling at various points in between. A switch to fingolimod was most often driven by a wish for a high-efficacy DMT with once-daily oral dosing. Improved tolerability figured prominently in switches to teriflunomide, and even more so in the relatively few changes to diroximel fumarate.
 

Drug switching in the pandemic era

Ms. Schobel said Spherix has been serially tracking neurologists’ prescribing for MS during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has clearly had an enormous dampening effect on medication switching. In mid-April, neurologists’ switching volume was down by 70%, compared with prepandemic figures. A slow recovery began in May, but by the end of the month prescription-switching volume was still down by 52%.

Of the neurologist prescriptions that are being run for switching thus far during the pandemic, 82% are being done via telemedicine. Therein hangs a tale, since neurology doesn’t readily lend itself to practice by telemedicine. Indeed, neurologists are using telemedicine to a lesser extent than physicians in the other specialties that Spherix monitors, according to Ms. Schobel. “COVID is definitely changing the MS world. Within MS, drug switching is now much more likely to involve a switch to a DMT that doesn’t impact the immune response and is not immunosuppressant, such as an injectable interferon or glatiramer acetate,” she said. “In this COVID world, safety and conservatism may end up trumping the move toward ‘time is brain’ which we’ve been talking so much about in recent years: the importance of getting patients on high-efficacy DMTs from the start in order to give them the best chance for positive outcomes.”

Ms. Schobel noted that Spherix received no industry funding to conduct these studies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Three main reasons have been put forth for using corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but only one – the hope of preventing lung fibrosis in patients with unresolved acute respiratory distress syndrome – is reasonable to employ now outside of formal randomized trials, Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, asserted at a webinar on COVID-19 sponsored by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

The most commonly invoked rationale for giving steroids in patients with severe COVID-19 is to modulate the destructive inflammatory immune response that occurs with advancing disease. Another justification cited for giving steroids is to treat suspected adrenal insufficiency in those with refractory shock. Of note, both practices are endorsed in the recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines on management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46[5]:854-87).

But those recommendations – numbers 22 and 42 out of a total of 50 recommendations included in the guidelines – should never have been made, according to Dr. Pickkers, professor of experimental intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
 

Dueling guidelines

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, which were developed by a panel comprising 36 experts in 12 countries, are quite frank in conceding that the guidance in favor of corticosteroids are weak recommendations based on low-quality evidence.

The guidelines recommend against using corticosteroids to try to modulate the immune system in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but do recommend steroids in those with COVID-19 and ARDS. However, the guidelines also note that, because of the very low quality of the evidence, some experts on the panel preferred not to issue a pro-steroids recommendation at all until higher-quality evidence becomes available. Dr. Pickkers said he believes that the minority view should have prevailed. Moreover, current COVID-19 guidance from the World Health Organization is at odds with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations; the WHO advises against corticosteroids unless the treatment is indicated for a reason other than immunomodulation, he noted.

The evidence in favor of steroids in an effort to blunt the immune response in COVID patients with ARDS is based largely upon a single small, retrospective, non–peer-reviewed report that 5-7 days of treatment with 1-2 mg/kg per day of methylprednisolone was associated with shortened fever duration and need for supplemental oxygen.

The evidence against steroids for immunomodulation comes mainly from earlier studies of the SARS and MERS novel coronaviruses. For example, in a multicenter study of 309 patients with the MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) virus, those who received corticosteroids received no benefit and experienced delayed viral clearance (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar 15;197[6]:757-67).

“The thing is, virtually all COVID-19 patients in the ICU fulfill the criteria for ARDS, so following the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines would have far-reaching consequences,” Dr. Pickkers said.

Those consequences include a theoretic potential for serious harm arising from dampening the immune response at a point in the course of COVID-19 when the virus is still present, which could result in slowed viral clearance and prolonged viral shedding. Moreover so far no one has been able to identify a sweet spot in the disease course where the viral load has waned and the immune response is sufficiently early that intervention with corticosteroids might have an optimal benefit/risk ratio, he continued.

“My opinion is that at this moment there is no benefit at all for corticosteroids for immunomodulation in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Pickkers said. “My personal recommendation, in contrast to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation, is not to use this therapy outside of a study.”

He added that randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are ongoing in Europe and the United States, including the large RECOVERY study of dexamethasone in the United Kingdom.

As for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendation to use corticosteroids to treat refractory shock in COVID-19, Dr. Pickkers dismissed this guidance as largely irrelevant. That’s because few patients with COVID-19 who need mechanical ventilation have refractory shock as evidenced by the need for a high infusion rate of norepinephrine. Anyway, he noted, that Surviving Sepsis recommendation is based upon extrapolation from evidence of benefit in bacterial septic shock patients, which he deemed to be of questionable relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Attacking the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS

First off, Dr. Pickkers conceded, there is no evidence that treatment with corticosteroids to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients with nonresolving ARDS is an effective strategy; the pandemic is simply too new at this point for the appropriate studies to have been done. But this much is known: Postmortem pathologic studies show fibroplastic proliferation is present in the lungs of COVID-19 patients, as in those who die of ARDS of other causes. Also, COVID-19 patients typically aren’t admitted to the ICU until day 11 or 12 after developing their first symptoms, so by the time they display indications that their ARDS is not resolving, the virus has typically left the scene; thus, there is little risk at that point that corticosteroids will promote viral proliferation. Additionally, studies in critically ill patients with nonresolving ARDS of other causes show clinically meaningful benefits for corticosteroid therapy.

Dr. Pickkers cited as “must reading” an analysis of five randomized trials of corticosteroid therapy in a total of 518 patients with acute lung injury ARDS of non–COVID-19 origin. The analysis by investigators at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, concluded that treatment resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Moreover, in the 400 patients whose steroid therapy commenced before day 14 of ARDS, there was a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death, compared with patients in whom corticosteroids were started later (Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jan;34[1]:61-9).

Session cochair Jan De Waele, MD, PhD, struck a cautious note, remarking, “It’s my perception that we’re using the evidence that we’ve gathered in other conditions and are now trying to apply it in COVID-19. But quality data on patients with COVID-19 itself is pretty scare, and it’s really hard to say whether this disease behaves similarly to bacterial septic shock or to other viral infections.”

“We need more information about the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, although I think a lot of people are using it at this moment,” added Dr. De Waele, a surgical intensivist at Ghent (Belgium) University.

That being said, he asked Dr. Pickkers when he considers using corticosteroids to prevent pulmonary fibrosis.

Dr. Pickkers said that when he notices that a COVID-19 patient’s lung compliance is worsening, that stiff lung is a clue that fibrosis is occurring and is having clinical consequences. “We also measure blood procollagen, a not very sensitive but moderately specific marker of fibroproliferation. If we see an increase in this biomarker and the lung mechanics are changing, then we do treat these patients with corticosteroids,” Dr. Pickkers replied.

He and his colleagues try to start steroids before day 14 of ARDS, and they continue treatment for longer than 7 days in order to prevent a rebound inflammatory response upon treatment discontinuation. They also avoid using neuromuscular agents and engage in meticulous infection surveillance in order to minimize potential complications of corticosteroid therapy in the ICU.

Dr. Pickkers reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

Patients who received a protocol-driven recommendation to initiate statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based upon their CT angiography coronary artery calcium score were twice as likely to actually start on the drug than those whose recommendation was guided by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator, according to the results of the randomized CorCal Vanguard study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

These results suggest that patients – and their primary care physicians – find the conventional method of screening for cardiovascular risk using the Pooled Cohort Equations to estimate the 10-year risk of MI or stroke, as recommended in ACC/AHA guidelines, to be less persuasive than screening for the presence or absence of actual disease as captured by CT angiography images and the associated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the ACC and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CorCal Vanguard study included 601 patients with an average baseline LDL cholesterol of 120 mg/dL, an average age of 60 years, and no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or prior statin therapy. They were randomized to decision-making regarding statin therapy based on either the ACC/AHA guideline–endorsed Pooled Cohort Equations, which use an estimated 10-year risk of 7.5% or more as the threshold for statin initiation, or their CAC score.

If a patient’s CAC score was 0, the recommendation was against starting a statin. Everyone with a CAC greater than 100 received a recommendation for high-intensity statin therapy. And for those with a CAC of 1-100, the decision defaulted to the results of the Pooled Cohort Equations. The screening results were provided to a patient’s primary physician so they could engage in joint decision-making regarding initiation of statin therapy. Adherence to a screening-based recommendation to start on a statin was assessed at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, explained Dr. Muhlestein, a cardiologist at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City.

He noted that CorCal Vanguard was merely a feasibility study. Based on the study results he presented at ACC 2020, the full 9,000-patient CorCal primary prevention trial is now enrolling participants. CorCal is the first randomized trial to pit the Pooled Cohort Equations against the CAC score in a large study looking for differences in downstream clinical outcomes.

The rationale for this line of clinical research lies in the known limitations of the ACC/AHA risk calculator. “It may overestimate risk in some populations, patients aren’t always adherent to Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator recommendations, and it doesn’t include novel risk markers such as C-reactive protein that some consider important for risk assessment. And the big question: Should we continue risk screening to determine potential benefit from drug therapy, or should we switch to disease screening?” the cardiologist commented.
 

The CorCal Vanguard results

A recommendation to start statin therapy was made in 48% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group, versus 36% of the group randomized to CAC. However, only 17% of patients in the Pooled Cohort Equations group actually initiated a statin, a significantly lower rate than the 26% figure in the CAC arm. Fully 70% of patients who received a recommendation to start taking a statin on the basis of their CAC score actually did so, compared to just 36% of those whose recommendation was based upon their Pooled Cohort Equations Risk Calculator.

At 3 months of follow-up, 61% of patients who received an initial recommendation to start statin therapy based upon their CAC screening were actually taking a statin, compared with 41% of those whose recommendation was based upon the Pooled Cohort Equations. At 12 months, the figures were 64% and 49%.

In both groups, at 12 months of follow-up, the No. 1 reason patients weren’t taking a statin as recommended was that their personal physician had advised against it or never prescribed it. That accounted for roughly half of the nonadherence. Another quarter was because of a preference to try lifestyle change first. Fear of drug side effects was a less common reason.

Putting the CorCal Vanguard study results in perspective, Dr. Muhlestein observed that, prior to the screening study, none of the participants had ever been on a statin, yet 37% of them were found by one screening method or the other to be at high cardiovascular risk. Of those high-risk patients, 51% actually initiated statin therapy and the majority of them were still taking their medication 12 months later.

“That has to be a good thing. It emphasizes what can be done when proactive primary prevention is practiced,” the cardiologist said.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the CorCal study, which was funded by a grant from the Dell Loy Hansen Cardiovascular Research Fund.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muhlestein JB et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-12.

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

One of the greatest tragedies of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the failure of health policy makers to anticipate and mitigate the enormous havoc the policy of social distancing would wreak on mental health and cognitive function in older persons, speakers agreed at a webinar on COVID-19, social distancing, and its impact on social and mental health in the elderly hosted by the International Psychogeriatric Association in collaboration with INTERDEM.

iofoto/Thinkstock

“Social distancing” is a two-edged sword: It is for now and the foreseeable future the only available effective strategy for protecting against infection in the older population most vulnerable to severe forms of COVID-19. Yet social distancing also has caused many elderly – particularly those in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities – to plunge into a profound experience of loneliness, isolation, distress, feelings of abandonment, anxiety, depression, and accelerated cognitive deterioration. And this needn’t have happened, the mental health professionals asserted.

“When are we going to get rid of the term ‘social distancing?’ ” asked IPA President William E. Reichman, MD. “Many have appreciated – including the World Health Organization – that the real issue is physical distancing to prevent contagion. And physical distancing doesn’t have to mean social distancing.”

Social connectedness between elderly persons and their peers and family members can be maintained and should be emphatically encouraged during the physical distancing required by the pandemic, said Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, PhD, of Radboud University in Nigmegen, the Netherlands, and chair of INTERDEM, a pan-European network of dementia researchers.

This can be achieved using readily available technologies, including the telephone and videoconferencing, as well as by creating opportunities for supervised masked visits between a family member and an elderly loved one in outdoor courtyards or gardens within long-term care facilities. And yet, as the pandemic seized hold in many parts of the world, family members were blocked from entry to these facilities, she observed.
 

Impact on mental health, cognition

Dr. Vernooij-Dassen noted that studies of previous quarantine periods as well as preliminary findings during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate an inverse relationship between social isolation measures and cognitive functioning in the elderly.

“A striking finding is that lack of social interaction is associated with incident dementia. Conversely, epidemiologic data indicate that a socially integrated lifestyle had a favorable influence on cognitive functioning and could even delay onset of dementia,” she said.

INTERDEM is backing two ongoing studies evaluating the hypothesis that interventions fostering increased social interaction among elderly individuals can delay onset of dementia or favorably affect its course. The proposed mechanism of benefit is stimulation of brain plasticity to enhance cognitive reserve.

“This is a hypothesis of hope. We know that social interaction for humans is like water to plants – we really, really need it,” she explained.

Diego de Leo, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of psychiatry and former director of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Brisbane, was living in hard-hit Padua, Italy, during the first surge of COVID-19. He described his anecdotal experience.

“What I hear from many Italian colleagues and friends and directors of mental health services is that emergency admissions related to mental disorders declined during the first wave of the COVID pandemic. For example, not many people attended emergency departments due to suicide attempts; there was a very marked decrease in the number of suicide attempts during the worst days of the pandemic,” he said.

People with psychiatric conditions were afraid to go to the hospital because they thought they would contract the infection and die there. That’s changing now, however.

“Now there is an increased number of admissions to mental health units. A new wave. It has been a U-shaped curve. And we’re now witnessing an increasing number of fatal suicides due to persistent fears, due to people imagining that there is no more room for them, and no more future for them from a financial point of view – which is the major negative outcome of this crisis. It will be a disaster for many families,” the psychiatrist continued.

A noteworthy phenomenon in northern Italy was that, when tablets were made available to nursing home residents in an effort to enhance their connectedness to the outside world, those with dementia often became so frustrated and confused by their difficulty in using the devices that they developed a hypokinetic delirium marked by refusal to eat or leave their bed, he reported.

It’s far too early to have reliable data on suicide trends in response to the pandemic, according to Dr. de Leo. But one thing is for sure: The strategy of social distancing employed to curb COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of known risk factors for suicide in older individuals, including loneliness, anxiety, and depression; increased alcohol use; and a perception of being a burden on society. Dr. de Leo directs a foundation dedicated to helping people experiencing traumatic bereavement, and in one recent week, the foundation was contacted by eight families in the province of Padua with a recent death by suicide apparently related to fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s an unusually high spike in suicide in a province with a population of 1 million.

“People probably preferred to end the agitation, the fear, the extreme anxiety about their destiny by deciding to prematurely truncate their life. That has been reported by nursing staff,” he said.

The Italian government has determined that, to date, 36% of all COVID-related deaths have occurred in people aged 85 years or older, and 84% of deaths were in individuals aged at least 70 years. And in Milan and the surrounding province of Lombardy, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has taken the lives of 25% of all nursing home residents. The North American experience has been uncomfortably similar.

“Almost 80% of COVID deaths in Canada have occurred in congregate settings,” observed Dr. Reichman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and president and CEO of Baycrest Health Sciences, a geriatric research center.

“Certainly, the appalling number of deaths in nursing homes is the No. 1 horror of the pandemic,” declared Carmelle Peisah, MBBS, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of New South Wales in Kensington, Australia.
 

The fire next time

The conventional wisdom holds that COVID-19 has caused all sorts of mayhem in the delivery of elder care. Not so, in Dr. Reichman’s view.

“I would suggest that the pandemic has not caused many of the problems we talk about, it’s actually revealed problems that have always been there under the surface. For example, many older people, even before COVID-19, were socially isolated, socially distant. They had difficulty connecting with their relatives, difficulty accessing transportation to get to the store to buy food and see their doctors, and to interact with other older people,” the psychiatrist said.

“I would say as well that the pandemic didn’t cause the problems we’ve seen in long-term congregate senior care. The pandemic revealed them. We’ve had facilities where older people were severely crowded together, which compromises their quality of life, even when there’s not a pandemic. We’ve had difficulty staffing these kinds of environments with people that are paid an honest wage for the very hard work that they do. In many of these settings they’re inadequately trained, not only in infection prevention and control but in all other aspects of care. And the pandemic has revealed that many of these organizations are not properly funded. The government doesn’t support them well enough across jurisdictions, and they can’t raise enough philanthropic funds to provide the kind of quality of life that residents demand,” Dr. Reichman continued.

Could the pandemic spur improved elder care? His hope is that health care professionals, politicians, and society at large will learn from the devastation left by the first surge of the pandemic and will lobby for the resources necessary for much-needed improvements in geriatric care.

“We need to be better prepared should there be not only a second wave of this pandemic, but for other pandemics to come,” Dr. Reichman concluded.

The speakers indicated they had no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Daily low-dose aspirin for primary disease prevention in apparently healthy older people increased their risk of serious gastrointestinal bleeding by 60% in a new analysis from the large randomized ASPREE trial released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^.

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

The analysis identified several independent risk factors for major GI bleeding – advanced age, hypertension, obesity, smoking, and chronic kidney disease – according to Suzanne E. Mahady, MBBS, PhD, a gastroenterologist and clinical epidemiologist at Monash University in Melbourne.

“To date, there [are] no comparable data assessing aspirin-related bleeding in older healthy people from a large randomized, controlled trial. Previous data [have] been observational, with variable definitions of significant bleeding, and retrospective. We derived a standard definition for bleeding, used physicians to adjudicate bleeding endpoints, and followed older people for 5 years,” she explained in an interview.

“Our data on bleeding [are] novel,” Dr. Mahady added. “It will help clinicians assess who is most at risk of bleeding with aspirin and target modifiable bleeding risk factors where possible.”

ASPREE was a double-blind trial including 19,114 apparently healthy Australian and American adults age 70 or older, or age 65-plus for blacks and Hispanics in the United States. Participants were randomized to 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. At a median 4.7 years of follow-up, there was no between-group difference in major adverse cardiovascular events, a lack of benefit accompanied by a 38% greater risk of major hemorrhage risk and a statistically significant 14% increase in all-cause mortality in the aspirin group. (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18). The chief contributor to the excess mortality in the aspirin group was their 31% greater risk of cancer-related death (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1519-28).

The new analysis of severe GI bleeding documented an absolute 5-year risk of 0.2% for 70-year-olds and 0.4% in 80-year-olds on aspirin. In 80-year-olds with additional GI bleeding risk factors as identified in the study, the rate reached up to 5.5%. The risk of major upper GI bleeding events was 87% greater in the aspirin group, compared with placebo-treated controls, and the risk of serious lower GI bleeding was increased 36%.

ASPREE coinvestigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, said that the bleeding data should prove useful in future efforts to appropriately weight the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin treatment.

“We need to better understand how to incorporate bleeding risk in clinical decision making about how to use aspirin among older adults because aspirin has many potential benefits, including prevention of colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Chan, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director for cancer epidemiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

However, ASPREE has soured cardiologists on the decades-long practice of recommending aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older individuals. In response to the publication of primary outcomes in ASPREE, which was closely bracketed by publication of the largely negative results of the randomized ARRIVE and ASCEND trials in a collective 47,000-plus randomized patients, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clipped aspirin’s role for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The current recommendation is that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for primary cardiovascular prevention in people above age 70, nor in adults at any age at increased bleeding risk, although the practice “might be considered” for primary prevention in select higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease–risk 40- to 70-year-olds, provided they are not at increased bleeding risk (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010).

Dr. Mahady reported having no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Chan serves as a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Janssen, and Pfizer.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Daily low-dose aspirin for primary disease prevention in apparently healthy older people increased their risk of serious gastrointestinal bleeding by 60% in a new analysis from the large randomized ASPREE trial released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^.

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

The analysis identified several independent risk factors for major GI bleeding – advanced age, hypertension, obesity, smoking, and chronic kidney disease – according to Suzanne E. Mahady, MBBS, PhD, a gastroenterologist and clinical epidemiologist at Monash University in Melbourne.

“To date, there [are] no comparable data assessing aspirin-related bleeding in older healthy people from a large randomized, controlled trial. Previous data [have] been observational, with variable definitions of significant bleeding, and retrospective. We derived a standard definition for bleeding, used physicians to adjudicate bleeding endpoints, and followed older people for 5 years,” she explained in an interview.

“Our data on bleeding [are] novel,” Dr. Mahady added. “It will help clinicians assess who is most at risk of bleeding with aspirin and target modifiable bleeding risk factors where possible.”

ASPREE was a double-blind trial including 19,114 apparently healthy Australian and American adults age 70 or older, or age 65-plus for blacks and Hispanics in the United States. Participants were randomized to 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. At a median 4.7 years of follow-up, there was no between-group difference in major adverse cardiovascular events, a lack of benefit accompanied by a 38% greater risk of major hemorrhage risk and a statistically significant 14% increase in all-cause mortality in the aspirin group. (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18). The chief contributor to the excess mortality in the aspirin group was their 31% greater risk of cancer-related death (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1519-28).

The new analysis of severe GI bleeding documented an absolute 5-year risk of 0.2% for 70-year-olds and 0.4% in 80-year-olds on aspirin. In 80-year-olds with additional GI bleeding risk factors as identified in the study, the rate reached up to 5.5%. The risk of major upper GI bleeding events was 87% greater in the aspirin group, compared with placebo-treated controls, and the risk of serious lower GI bleeding was increased 36%.

ASPREE coinvestigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, said that the bleeding data should prove useful in future efforts to appropriately weight the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin treatment.

“We need to better understand how to incorporate bleeding risk in clinical decision making about how to use aspirin among older adults because aspirin has many potential benefits, including prevention of colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Chan, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director for cancer epidemiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

However, ASPREE has soured cardiologists on the decades-long practice of recommending aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older individuals. In response to the publication of primary outcomes in ASPREE, which was closely bracketed by publication of the largely negative results of the randomized ARRIVE and ASCEND trials in a collective 47,000-plus randomized patients, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clipped aspirin’s role for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The current recommendation is that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for primary cardiovascular prevention in people above age 70, nor in adults at any age at increased bleeding risk, although the practice “might be considered” for primary prevention in select higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease–risk 40- to 70-year-olds, provided they are not at increased bleeding risk (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010).

Dr. Mahady reported having no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Chan serves as a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Janssen, and Pfizer.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Daily low-dose aspirin for primary disease prevention in apparently healthy older people increased their risk of serious gastrointestinal bleeding by 60% in a new analysis from the large randomized ASPREE trial released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^.

David Sucsy/iStockphoto

The analysis identified several independent risk factors for major GI bleeding – advanced age, hypertension, obesity, smoking, and chronic kidney disease – according to Suzanne E. Mahady, MBBS, PhD, a gastroenterologist and clinical epidemiologist at Monash University in Melbourne.

“To date, there [are] no comparable data assessing aspirin-related bleeding in older healthy people from a large randomized, controlled trial. Previous data [have] been observational, with variable definitions of significant bleeding, and retrospective. We derived a standard definition for bleeding, used physicians to adjudicate bleeding endpoints, and followed older people for 5 years,” she explained in an interview.

“Our data on bleeding [are] novel,” Dr. Mahady added. “It will help clinicians assess who is most at risk of bleeding with aspirin and target modifiable bleeding risk factors where possible.”

ASPREE was a double-blind trial including 19,114 apparently healthy Australian and American adults age 70 or older, or age 65-plus for blacks and Hispanics in the United States. Participants were randomized to 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. At a median 4.7 years of follow-up, there was no between-group difference in major adverse cardiovascular events, a lack of benefit accompanied by a 38% greater risk of major hemorrhage risk and a statistically significant 14% increase in all-cause mortality in the aspirin group. (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1509-18). The chief contributor to the excess mortality in the aspirin group was their 31% greater risk of cancer-related death (N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379[16]:1519-28).

The new analysis of severe GI bleeding documented an absolute 5-year risk of 0.2% for 70-year-olds and 0.4% in 80-year-olds on aspirin. In 80-year-olds with additional GI bleeding risk factors as identified in the study, the rate reached up to 5.5%. The risk of major upper GI bleeding events was 87% greater in the aspirin group, compared with placebo-treated controls, and the risk of serious lower GI bleeding was increased 36%.

ASPREE coinvestigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, said that the bleeding data should prove useful in future efforts to appropriately weight the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin treatment.

“We need to better understand how to incorporate bleeding risk in clinical decision making about how to use aspirin among older adults because aspirin has many potential benefits, including prevention of colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Chan, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director for cancer epidemiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

However, ASPREE has soured cardiologists on the decades-long practice of recommending aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older individuals. In response to the publication of primary outcomes in ASPREE, which was closely bracketed by publication of the largely negative results of the randomized ARRIVE and ASCEND trials in a collective 47,000-plus randomized patients, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clipped aspirin’s role for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The current recommendation is that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for primary cardiovascular prevention in people above age 70, nor in adults at any age at increased bleeding risk, although the practice “might be considered” for primary prevention in select higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease–risk 40- to 70-year-olds, provided they are not at increased bleeding risk (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010).

Dr. Mahady reported having no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Chan serves as a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Janssen, and Pfizer.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A successful vaccine for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection will probably need to incorporate T-cell epitopes to induce a long-term memory T-cell immune response to the virus, Mehrdad Matloubian, MD, PhD, predicted at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies may not be sufficient to reliably provide sustained protection against infection. In mouse studies, T-cell immunity has protected against reinfection with the novel coronaviruses. And in some but not all studies of patients infected with the SARS virus, which shares 80% genetic overlap with the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, neutralizing antibodies have waned over time.

“In one study, 20 of 26 patients with SARS had lost their antibody response by 6 years post infection. And they had no B-cell immunity against the SARS antigens. The good news is they did have T-cell memory against SARS virus, and people with more severe disease tended to have more T-cell memory against SARS. All of this has really important implications for vaccine development,” observed Dr. Matloubian, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Matloubian is among those who are convinced that the ongoing massive global accelerated effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine affords the best opportunity to gain the upper hand in the COVID-19 pandemic. A large array of vaccines are in development.

A key safety concern to watch for in the coming months is whether a vaccine candidate is able to sidestep the issue of antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby prior infection with a non-SARS coronavirus, such as those that cause the common cold, might result in creation of rogue subneutralizing coronavirus antibodies in response to vaccination. There is concern that these nonneutralizing antibodies could facilitate entry of the virus into monocytes and other cells lacking the ACE2 receptor, its usual portal of entry. This in turn could trigger expanded viral replication, a hyperinflammatory response, and viral spread to sites beyond the lung, such as the heart or kidneys.
 

Little optimism about antivirals’ impact

Dr. Matloubian predicted that antiviral medications, including the much-ballyhooed remdesivir, are unlikely to be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s because most patients who become symptomatic don’t do so until at least 2 days post infection. By that point, their viral load has already peaked and is waning and the B- and T-cell immune responses are starting to gear up.

“Timing seems to be everything when it comes to treatment with antivirals,” he observed. “The virus titer is usually declining by the time people present with severe COVID-19, suggesting that at this time antiviral therapy might be of little use to change the course of the disease, especially if it’s mainly immune-mediated by then. Even with influenza virus, there’s a really short window where Tamiflu [oseltamivir] is effective. It’s going to be the same case for antivirals used for treatment of COVID-19.”

He noted that in a placebo-controlled, randomized trial of remdesivir in 236 Chinese patients with severe COVID-19, intravenous remdesivir wasn’t associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement, although there was a trend in that direction in the subgroup with symptom duration of 10 days or less at initiation of treatment.

A National Institutes of Health press release announcing that remdesivir had a positive impact on duration of hospitalization in a separate randomized trial drew enormous attention from a public desperate for good news. However, the full study has yet to be published, and it’s unclear when during the disease course the antiviral agent was started.

“We need a blockbuster antiviral that’s oral, highly effective, and doesn’t have any side effects to be used in prophylaxis of health care workers and for people who are exposed by family members being infected. And so far there is no such thing, even on the horizon,” according to the rheumatologist.

Fellow panelist Jinoos Yazdany, MD, concurred.

“As we talk to experts around the country, it seems like there isn’t very much optimism about such a blockbuster drug. Most people are actually putting their hope in a vaccine,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

Another research priority is identification of biomarkers in blood or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid to identify early on the subgroup of infected patients who are likely to crash and develop severe disease. That would permit a targeted approach to inhibition of the inflammatory pathways contributing to development of acute respiratory distress syndrome before this full-blown cytokine storm-like syndrome can occur. There is great interest in trying to achieve this by repurposing many biologic agents widely used by rheumatologists, including the interleukin-1 blocker anakinra (Kineret) and the IL-6 blocker tocilizumab (Actemra).

Dr. Matloubian reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A single 3-hour-long group psychosocial intervention designed specifically for patients in intensive outpatient programs for addiction treatment to prevent future suicide resulted in significantly improved knowledge and attitudes regarding suicide that persisted at 6 months of follow-up in a large multicenter randomized effectiveness study, reported Richard K. Ries, MD.

There is an enormous unmet need for evidence-based strategies for preventing addiction-related suicide, since people with substance use disorders have a 10-fold increased risk of suicide. Based upon these new study findings, the Preventing Addiction Related Suicide (PARS) program can now be considered the first such evidence-based intervention for this extremely high-risk population, Dr. Ries said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

“We’ve shown that suicide prevention in intensive outpatient program addiction groups is feasible, easy to train, and highly rated by counselors, and I’d say it’s very adaptable, easy to go national in almost any addiction treatment program, right out of the box,” said Dr. Ries, professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of outpatient psychiatry as well as the psychiatry addiction division at Harborview Medical Center.

The workbook-based PARS program developed by Dr. Ries and colleagues adapted empirically supported suicide prevention best practices from other settings for use in group-based intensive outpatient addiction treatment, which is the most common form of treatment for chemical dependency in the United States. Dr. Ries recognized the need for a program such as PARS because addiction counselors often feel out of their depth regarding suicide-related issues.

“Nothing had ever really been done before on any scale on suicide prevention in addiction centers,” he explained. “We designed the PARS intervention to be integrated right into the counselors’ workflow. They get trained right in their setting in a one-shot deal that takes 2-3 hours. The training was highly rated by counselors as acceptable and effective in their day-to-day work, not ivory tower-type stuff.”

Once the counselors were trained in PARS, they then trained their alcohol- and drug-addicted patients. Elements of the PARS program include information on suicide risk and protective factors, myths and facts about suicide, action steps to take when warning signs of suicide are observed, and local crisis resources.

The effectiveness study was a randomized, stepped-wedge cluster design intervention that included 905 patients in 15 busy community group–based intensive outpatient addiction treatment programs in Western Washington. Patients were randomized to counselor-delivered PARS or treatment as usual, with follow-up assessments at 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months.

There was no attempt to enrich the study population for suicidality by prescreening potential enrollees, since participation in a drug and alcohol treatment program already places an individual in a high-risk group. For example, 74% of study participants indicated they had thought of suicide at least once in the past year, compared with a background rate of 4% in the U.S. general population. And 29% of study participants reported a lifetime history of one or more suicide attempts, versus roughly 5% in the general population.

Dr. Ries’ coinvestigator, Katherine Anne Comtois, PhD, MPH, presented the study results. The three key outcomes were improvement on structured measures of suicide knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking behavior. The PARS recipients showed statistically significant improvement compared with baseline on two of the three: they displayed greater knowledge about suicide and its close relationship with addiction, and less stigmatization and other maladaptive attitudes toward suicide. Scores on all three measures remained unchanged over time in the control group.

“Overall, we had small to medium effect sizes, comparable to what you might see in studies measuring antidepressant effect sizes. I think these were meaningful improvements in knowledge and attitudes,” said Dr. Comtois of the University of Washington.

The PARS group showed a small increase in the third endpoint – willingness to seek professional help for themselves, friends, or family if depressed or suicidal, but this didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, Dr. Comtois noted that the study outcomes were assessed per protocol using an intent-to-treat analysis. This likely underestimated the true effectiveness of the PARS intervention, given that 40% of patients randomized to PARS didn’t actually attend the intervention session.

“People with drug and alcohol problems have complicated lives,” she said by way of explanation for the high no-show rate.

The investigators are now performing a per-protocol analysis of the data, restricted to those subjects who actually attended their session. A long-term look at suicide events and outcomes in the study population is planned.

Dr. Ries and Dr. Comtois reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by a multiyear grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for their rheumatic disease when they became infected with COVID-19 were markedly less likely to subsequently require hospitalization, according to intriguing early evidence from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

On the other hand, those registry patients who were on 10 mg of prednisone or more daily when they got infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than were those who were not on corticosteroids, even after controlling for the severity of their rheumatic disease and other potential confounders, Jinoos Yazdany, MD, reported at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.

“We saw a signal with moderate to high-dose steroids. I think it’s something we’re going to have to keep an eye out on as more data come in,” said Dr. Yazdany, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of rheumatology at San Francisco General Hospital.

The global registry launched on March 24, 2020, and was quickly embraced by rheumatologists from around the world. By May 12, the registry included more than 1,300 patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, all with confirmed COVID-19 infection as a requisite for enrollment; the cases were submitted by more than 300 rheumatologists in 40 countries. The registry is supported by the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism.

Dr. Yazdany, a member of the registry steering committee, described the project’s two main goals: To learn the outcomes of COVID-19–infected patients with various rheumatic diseases and to make inferences regarding the impact of the immunosuppressive and antimalarial medications widely prescribed by rheumatologists.

She presented soon-to-be-published data on the characteristics and disposition of the first 600 patients, 46% of whom were hospitalized and 9% died. A caveat regarding the registry, she noted, is that these are observational data and thus potentially subject to unrecognized confounders. Also, the registry population is skewed toward the sicker end of the COVID-19 disease spectrum because while all participants have confirmed infection, testing for the infection has been notoriously uneven. Many people are infected asymptomatically and thus may not undergo testing even where readily available.
 

Early key findings from registry

The risk factors for more severe infection resulting in hospitalization in patients with rheumatic diseases are by and large the same drivers described in the general population: older age and comorbid conditions including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and lung disease. Notably, however, patients on the equivalent of 10 mg/day of prednisone or more were at a 105% increased risk for hospitalization, compared with those not on corticosteroids after adjustment for age, comorbid conditions, and rheumatic disease severity.

Patients on a background tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor had an adjusted 60% reduction in risk of hospitalization. This apparent protective effect against more severe COVID-19 disease is mechanistically plausible: In animal studies, being on a TNF inhibitor has been associated with less severe infection following exposure to influenza virus, Dr. Yazdany observed.

COVID-infected patients on any biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug had a 54% decreased risk of hospitalization. However, in this early analysis, the study was sufficiently powered only to specifically assess the impact of TNF inhibitors, since those agents were by far the most commonly used biologics. As the registry grows, it will be possible to analyze the impact of other antirheumatic medications.

Being on hydroxychloroquine or other antimalarials at the time of COVID-19 infection had no impact on hospitalization.

The only rheumatic disease diagnosis with an odds of hospitalization significantly different from that of RA patients was systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Lupus patients were at 80% increased risk of hospitalization. Although this was a statistically significant difference, Dr. Yazdany cautioned against making too much of it because of the strong potential for unmeasured confounding. In particular, lupus patients as a group are known to rate on the lower end of measures of social determinants of health, a status that is an established major risk factor for COVID-19 disease.

“A strength of the global registry has been that it provides timely data that’s been very helpful for rheumatologists to rapidly dispel misinformation that has been spread about hydroxychloroquine, especially statements about lupus patients not getting COVID-19. We know from these data that’s not true,” she said.

Being on background NSAIDs at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization; in fact, NSAID users were 36% less likely to be hospitalized for their COVID-19 disease, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

Dr. Yazdany urged her fellow rheumatologists to enter their cases on the registry website: rheum-covid.org. There they can also join the registry mailing list and receive weekly updates.
 

Other recent insights on COVID-19 in rheumatology

An as-yet unpublished U.K. observational study involving electronic health record data on 17 million people included 885,000 individuals with RA, SLE, or psoriasis. After extensive statistical controlling for the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, including a measure of socioeconomic deprivation, the group with one of these autoimmune diseases had an adjusted, statistically significant 23% increased risk of hospital death because of COVID-19 infection.

“This is the largest study of its kind to date. There’s potential for unmeasured confounding and selection bias here due to who gets tested. We’ll have to see where this study lands, but I think it does suggest there’s a slightly higher mortality risk in COVID-infected patients with rheumatic disease,” according to Dr. Yazdany.

On the other hand, there have been at least eight recently published patient surveys and case series of patients with rheumatic diseases in areas of the world hardest hit by the pandemic, and they paint a consistent picture.

“What we’ve learned from these studies was the infection rate was generally in the ballpark of people in the region. It doesn’t seem like there’s a dramatically higher infection rate in people with rheumatic disease in these surveys. The hospitalized rheumatology patients had many of the familiar comorbidities. This is the first glance at how likely people are to become infected and how they fared, and I think overall the data have been quite reassuring,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

bjancin@mdedge.com