Pharmacology

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.

Oral semaglutide monotherapy was superior to placebo for improving glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels at all doses tested in adults with type 2 diabetes who had been previously insufficiently managed with diet and exercise, according to findings from a global, randomized trial.

The drug also showed dose-dependent weight loss, with a statistically significant effect on body weight, compared with placebo, at higher doses.

To date, the glucagon-like peptide–1 receptor agonist has been available as weekly subcutaneous shots for patients with type 2 diabetes, and in that form they have been shown to be effective in reducing HbA_1c, inducing weight loss, and lowering the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease or those who are at high risk for it, wrote Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. The report is in Diabetes Care.

The novel oral semaglutide tablet is designed to enhance medication absorption, and the pharmacokinetics and dosage were established in phase 2 studies, they noted.

In the phase 3 Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment 1 (PIONEER 1) study, Dr. Aroda and colleagues randomized 703 adults with type 2 diabetes to receive either 3 mg, 7 mg, or 14 mg of oral semaglutide daily, or placebo. The average age of the patients was 55 years, about half were women, and the average baseline HbA_1c was 8.0% (64 mmol/mol). The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c level from baseline to week 26, and the secondary endpoint was change in body weight over the same period.

After 26 weeks of once-daily treatment, patients in semaglutide group showed significant reductions in HbA_1c from baseline with all three doses: –0.6% (3 mg), –0.9% (7 mg), and –1.1% (14 mg), with P less than .001 for all, based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Similar results occurred using an on-treatment analysis, with differences of –0.7%, –1.2%, and –1.4%, respectively, for the three doses.

In addition, patients in all dose groups achieved the secondary endpoint of reduction in body weight, compared with placebo, from baseline to 26 weeks based on both types of analyses. “Significantly more patients achieved body weight loss of at least 5% with oral semaglutide at 7 mg and 14 mg, compared with placebo,” Dr. Aroda and colleagues wrote (intention-to-treat: –0.1 for 3 mg daily [P = .87], –0.9 for 7 mg [P = .09], –2.3 for 14 mg [P less than .001]; and on-treatment: –0.2 for 3 mg [P = .71], –1.0 for 7 mg [P = .01], –2.6 for 14 mg [P less than .001]).

The overall incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment and placebo groups, with the most frequent being nausea and diarrhea. No deaths occurred among patients on the medication.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a patient population that had a relatively short duration of diabetes (mean, 3.5 years) and that the oral semaglutide was used as first-line monotherapy, without first using metformin, the researchers noted. However, oral semaglutide “achieved clinically meaningful and superior glucose lowering,” compared with placebo, at all three doses, they wrote.

“Ongoing additional studies in the PIONEER program will further define the effect when used in combination with other glucose-lowering therapies and in other populations of interest, such as those with high cardiovascular risk or renal impairment,” they emphasized

Novo Nordisk funded the study. The lead author disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with or employment by the company.

SOURCE: Aroda VR et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0749.

NEW YORK – Sunscreens remain the front-line strategy for preventing skin cancers of all types, but there is a growing array of chemopreventive agents for keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) that deserves to be considered for selective use in at-risk patients, according to an update at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In providing her perspective on the available options, Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, emphasized that the therapies are not interchangeable but deserve to be used selectively according to their relative protection and relative risks.

Of oral agents, she characterized two, nicotinamide and acitretin, as “clinic-ready.” Acitretin is “an oldie but goodie,” but there is an important issue of tolerability. In the published studies, 15%-39% of patients withdrew because of adverse events, according to Dr. Hartman, which suggests the need for a motivated patient.

In addition, acitretin can be esterified into etretinate, a teratogen that can persist as long as 3 years after the drug is discontinued, making this drug contraindicated in women of childbearing potential, she noted.

However, most patients in need of prophylaxis for KCs are older, so teratogenicity is not an issue. In her practice, she offers acitretin to patients who are developing three or more KCs per year, as well as in situations of extensive skin damage in which a course of acitretin might provide some degree of clearing.

“When you are faced with the potential of a large number of biopsies, you could start acitretin to see if lesions can be reduced,” Dr. Hartman said .

Prevention of KCs became somewhat more attractive as a routine practice following publication of a phase 3 trial with nicotinamide. In this study, nicotinamide, an over-the-counter water-soluble form of vitamin B3, was associated with significantly reduced nonmelanoma skin cancers, including KCs and actinic keratoses, relative to placebo (N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373[17]:1618-26). Importantly, there was no greater risk of adverse events relative to placebo.

When assessed individually, the relative reduction in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs; P = .05) and basal cell carcinomas (P = .12) fell short of statistical significance, but there was a highly significant 13% reduction in actinic keratoses after 12 months (P less than .001). An increase in SCCs was observed after therapy was stopped, which led Dr. Hartman to conclude that nicotinamide must be used on a “use-it-or-lose-it” basis. However, she does routinely offer this option.

“When do I recommend nicotinamide? Any patient with multiple actinic keratoses who wants to get ahead of the game and wants something that is relative safe,” Dr. Hartman explained. She uses the same dosing employed in the study, which was 500 mg twice daily.

There are other options for chemoprevention of KCs, but they are less attractive.

For example, capecitabine is effective, but tolerability is an even greater issue with this agent than it is for acitretin. According to Dr. Hartman, “we use this therapy very rarely and only in select cases.” As an alternative to the 14 days on and 7 days off schedule used for treatment of cancer, capecitabine is sometimes better tolerated in a 7 day on and 7 day off schedule, she said.

Topical 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol is another chemoprevention option for those who can tolerate a skin reaction that lasts several days, Dr. Hartman said. She cited one study that associated this therapy with a nearly 80% reduction in face and scalp SCC.

Ultimately, she offers 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol to “patients who want an evidence-based chemoprevention,” but she indicated that patients must be motivated to endure the adverse effects.

Many remain unaware of the array of options for chemoprevention of KCs, but Dr. Hartman emphasized that this is an area of active research with new options expected.

“I am really excited about the future direction of chemoprevention in skin cancer,” said Dr. Hartman, citing ongoing work to develop vitamin A, polypodium leucotomas extract, and human papillomavirus vaccine as options.

“If we can stop skin cancer in the first place, avoiding the morbidity and mortality of treatment, we will also hopefully save costs as well,” she commented. So far, essentially all of the strategies for chemoprevention, other than sunscreen, involve KCs, which leaves a large unmet need for better ways to prevent melanoma. However, Dr. Hartman noted that KCs represent the most common type of cancer of any type.

Just days after Dr. Hartman spoke at the meeting, a prospective study of vitamin A that found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and cutaneous SCC risk was, in fact, published in JAMA Dermatology (2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1937).

Dr. Hartman reported no financial relationships relevant to her presentation.

 

NEW YORK – Sunscreens remain the front-line strategy for preventing skin cancers of all types, but there is a growing array of chemopreventive agents for keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) that deserves to be considered for selective use in at-risk patients, according to an update at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In providing her perspective on the available options, Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, emphasized that the therapies are not interchangeable but deserve to be used selectively according to their relative protection and relative risks.

Of oral agents, she characterized two, nicotinamide and acitretin, as “clinic-ready.” Acitretin is “an oldie but goodie,” but there is an important issue of tolerability. In the published studies, 15%-39% of patients withdrew because of adverse events, according to Dr. Hartman, which suggests the need for a motivated patient.

In addition, acitretin can be esterified into etretinate, a teratogen that can persist as long as 3 years after the drug is discontinued, making this drug contraindicated in women of childbearing potential, she noted.

However, most patients in need of prophylaxis for KCs are older, so teratogenicity is not an issue. In her practice, she offers acitretin to patients who are developing three or more KCs per year, as well as in situations of extensive skin damage in which a course of acitretin might provide some degree of clearing.

“When you are faced with the potential of a large number of biopsies, you could start acitretin to see if lesions can be reduced,” Dr. Hartman said .

Prevention of KCs became somewhat more attractive as a routine practice following publication of a phase 3 trial with nicotinamide. In this study, nicotinamide, an over-the-counter water-soluble form of vitamin B3, was associated with significantly reduced nonmelanoma skin cancers, including KCs and actinic keratoses, relative to placebo (N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373[17]:1618-26). Importantly, there was no greater risk of adverse events relative to placebo.

When assessed individually, the relative reduction in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs; P = .05) and basal cell carcinomas (P = .12) fell short of statistical significance, but there was a highly significant 13% reduction in actinic keratoses after 12 months (P less than .001). An increase in SCCs was observed after therapy was stopped, which led Dr. Hartman to conclude that nicotinamide must be used on a “use-it-or-lose-it” basis. However, she does routinely offer this option.

“When do I recommend nicotinamide? Any patient with multiple actinic keratoses who wants to get ahead of the game and wants something that is relative safe,” Dr. Hartman explained. She uses the same dosing employed in the study, which was 500 mg twice daily.

There are other options for chemoprevention of KCs, but they are less attractive.

For example, capecitabine is effective, but tolerability is an even greater issue with this agent than it is for acitretin. According to Dr. Hartman, “we use this therapy very rarely and only in select cases.” As an alternative to the 14 days on and 7 days off schedule used for treatment of cancer, capecitabine is sometimes better tolerated in a 7 day on and 7 day off schedule, she said.

Topical 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol is another chemoprevention option for those who can tolerate a skin reaction that lasts several days, Dr. Hartman said. She cited one study that associated this therapy with a nearly 80% reduction in face and scalp SCC.

Ultimately, she offers 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol to “patients who want an evidence-based chemoprevention,” but she indicated that patients must be motivated to endure the adverse effects.

Many remain unaware of the array of options for chemoprevention of KCs, but Dr. Hartman emphasized that this is an area of active research with new options expected.

“I am really excited about the future direction of chemoprevention in skin cancer,” said Dr. Hartman, citing ongoing work to develop vitamin A, polypodium leucotomas extract, and human papillomavirus vaccine as options.

“If we can stop skin cancer in the first place, avoiding the morbidity and mortality of treatment, we will also hopefully save costs as well,” she commented. So far, essentially all of the strategies for chemoprevention, other than sunscreen, involve KCs, which leaves a large unmet need for better ways to prevent melanoma. However, Dr. Hartman noted that KCs represent the most common type of cancer of any type.

Just days after Dr. Hartman spoke at the meeting, a prospective study of vitamin A that found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and cutaneous SCC risk was, in fact, published in JAMA Dermatology (2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1937).

Dr. Hartman reported no financial relationships relevant to her presentation.

 

NEW YORK – Sunscreens remain the front-line strategy for preventing skin cancers of all types, but there is a growing array of chemopreventive agents for keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs) that deserves to be considered for selective use in at-risk patients, according to an update at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In providing her perspective on the available options, Rebecca Hartman, MD, MPH, director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, emphasized that the therapies are not interchangeable but deserve to be used selectively according to their relative protection and relative risks.

Of oral agents, she characterized two, nicotinamide and acitretin, as “clinic-ready.” Acitretin is “an oldie but goodie,” but there is an important issue of tolerability. In the published studies, 15%-39% of patients withdrew because of adverse events, according to Dr. Hartman, which suggests the need for a motivated patient.

In addition, acitretin can be esterified into etretinate, a teratogen that can persist as long as 3 years after the drug is discontinued, making this drug contraindicated in women of childbearing potential, she noted.

However, most patients in need of prophylaxis for KCs are older, so teratogenicity is not an issue. In her practice, she offers acitretin to patients who are developing three or more KCs per year, as well as in situations of extensive skin damage in which a course of acitretin might provide some degree of clearing.

“When you are faced with the potential of a large number of biopsies, you could start acitretin to see if lesions can be reduced,” Dr. Hartman said .

Prevention of KCs became somewhat more attractive as a routine practice following publication of a phase 3 trial with nicotinamide. In this study, nicotinamide, an over-the-counter water-soluble form of vitamin B3, was associated with significantly reduced nonmelanoma skin cancers, including KCs and actinic keratoses, relative to placebo (N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373[17]:1618-26). Importantly, there was no greater risk of adverse events relative to placebo.

When assessed individually, the relative reduction in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs; P = .05) and basal cell carcinomas (P = .12) fell short of statistical significance, but there was a highly significant 13% reduction in actinic keratoses after 12 months (P less than .001). An increase in SCCs was observed after therapy was stopped, which led Dr. Hartman to conclude that nicotinamide must be used on a “use-it-or-lose-it” basis. However, she does routinely offer this option.

“When do I recommend nicotinamide? Any patient with multiple actinic keratoses who wants to get ahead of the game and wants something that is relative safe,” Dr. Hartman explained. She uses the same dosing employed in the study, which was 500 mg twice daily.

There are other options for chemoprevention of KCs, but they are less attractive.

For example, capecitabine is effective, but tolerability is an even greater issue with this agent than it is for acitretin. According to Dr. Hartman, “we use this therapy very rarely and only in select cases.” As an alternative to the 14 days on and 7 days off schedule used for treatment of cancer, capecitabine is sometimes better tolerated in a 7 day on and 7 day off schedule, she said.

Topical 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol is another chemoprevention option for those who can tolerate a skin reaction that lasts several days, Dr. Hartman said. She cited one study that associated this therapy with a nearly 80% reduction in face and scalp SCC.

Ultimately, she offers 5-fluorouracil with or without calcipotriol to “patients who want an evidence-based chemoprevention,” but she indicated that patients must be motivated to endure the adverse effects.

Many remain unaware of the array of options for chemoprevention of KCs, but Dr. Hartman emphasized that this is an area of active research with new options expected.

“I am really excited about the future direction of chemoprevention in skin cancer,” said Dr. Hartman, citing ongoing work to develop vitamin A, polypodium leucotomas extract, and human papillomavirus vaccine as options.

“If we can stop skin cancer in the first place, avoiding the morbidity and mortality of treatment, we will also hopefully save costs as well,” she commented. So far, essentially all of the strategies for chemoprevention, other than sunscreen, involve KCs, which leaves a large unmet need for better ways to prevent melanoma. However, Dr. Hartman noted that KCs represent the most common type of cancer of any type.

Just days after Dr. Hartman spoke at the meeting, a prospective study of vitamin A that found an inverse association between vitamin A intake and cutaneous SCC risk was, in fact, published in JAMA Dermatology (2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1937).

Dr. Hartman reported no financial relationships relevant to her presentation.

 

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

koakes@mdedge.com

This article was updated 8/8/19.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

koakes@mdedge.com

This article was updated 8/8/19.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

koakes@mdedge.com

This article was updated 8/8/19.

Vitamin D supplementation may lead to significant improvements in ulcerative colitis (UC), based on a placebo-controlled trial involving 60 patients with active disease.

Those who achieved vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL were most likely to benefit, reported lead author Rizwan Ahamed Z, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, and colleagues. They noted that the findings contribute much-needed clinical data to a largely theoretical subject area.

“[T]he discovery of vitamin D receptors on lymphocytes, monocytes, and dendritic cells initiated various studies which have highlighted the role of vitamin D in regulating gut mucosal immunity and gut barrier,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In experimental interleukin (IL)-10 knockout mice models, vitamin D deficiency was found to result in severe colitis, progressive wasting, and high mortality. However, vitamin D supplementation not only prevented but also ameliorated symptoms of colitis in the mice model.”

Human studies have revealed similar associations between vitamin D supplementation and inflammatory bowel disease, such as a study by Jørgensen and colleagues that found a lower risk of relapse in Crohn’s disease, and another by Sharifi and colleagues that showed injectable vitamin D could reduce erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with UC. Still, the investigators suggested that more clinical data are needed, particularly for outcomes after vitamin D therapy. In addition to providing such data, the present trial was also the first of its kind to test oral nano vitamin D₃, which may have better bioavailability than conventional supplements.

The investigators initially recruited 110 patients with active UC who had an ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) of at least 3. After screening, 50 patients were excluded because they had vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL, were already taking a vitamin D supplement, had severe UC requiring hospitalization, or exhibited severe systemic illness. The remaining 60 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 60,000 IU nano vitamin D₃ once daily for 8 days, or placebo. Disease parameters, which were measured at baseline and then again at 4 weeks, included UCDAI, ESR, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The primary outcome was response, defined as a UCDAI reduction of at least 3 points. Secondary outcome measures included stool frequency, stool consistency, and remission (UCDAI less than 3); in addition, the investigators evaluated histologic, endoscopic, fecal, and serum inflammatory markers.

The majority of patients in the study were men (60%), with a mean age of 36 years. Most patients had moderate UC (73.3%), while smaller proportions had severe (18%) or mild (8%) disease. All patients were taking a 5-aminosalicylic acid oral compound and some (16.6%) were also taking azathioprine. At baseline, the mean vitamin D level was 14 ng/mL. Most patients (70%) were diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency, based on measurements below 20 ng/mL. The remaining patients were diagnosed with insufficiency (13%; 20-30 ng/mL) or suboptimal levels (17%; 30-40 ng/mL).

From baseline to 4-week follow-up, median vitamin D level in the supplement group increased from 15.4 to 40.83 ng/mL, compared with a much smaller increase in the placebo group, from 13.45 to 18.85 ng/mL. Compared with the placebo group, significantly more patients given nano vitamin D₃ achieved a UCDAI 3-point reduction (53% vs 13%; P = .001); this translated to a Pearson correlation coefficient (rho) of –0.713, between vitamin D level and UCDAI. Similar, albeit less strong, inverse relationships were detected between vitamin D level and CRP (rho = −0.603) and calprotectin (rho = −0.368).

Benefits observed in the supplement group also extended to stool frequency, stool consistency, and histologic measures. Those who achieved a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL were 4 times more likely to have a UCDAI 3-point reduction than those who did not meet the same criteria (80% vs 20%; P = .038). Independent predictors of response included baseline histologic activity (odds ratio, 1.92), and to a greater extent, vitamin D supplementation (OR, 9.17). No patients achieved remission, which the investigators attributed to the relatively short study duration.

Minor, self-limiting side effects occurred in 13.3% and 10% of patients given the vitamin D supplement and placebo, respectively.

“[T]he present study showed significant improvement in all inflammatory parameters of the disease including clinical, endoscopic, histopathologic, and serum and fecal markers of inflammation, all of which paralleled each other in showing [the benefit of] oral nano vitamin D supplementation,” the investigators concluded. They advised that larger, longer-term studies are needed before the findings can be generalized to all patients with active UC.

The investigators disclosed no external funding or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ahamed R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001233.

Vitamin D supplementation may lead to significant improvements in ulcerative colitis (UC), based on a placebo-controlled trial involving 60 patients with active disease.

Those who achieved vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL were most likely to benefit, reported lead author Rizwan Ahamed Z, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, and colleagues. They noted that the findings contribute much-needed clinical data to a largely theoretical subject area.

“[T]he discovery of vitamin D receptors on lymphocytes, monocytes, and dendritic cells initiated various studies which have highlighted the role of vitamin D in regulating gut mucosal immunity and gut barrier,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In experimental interleukin (IL)-10 knockout mice models, vitamin D deficiency was found to result in severe colitis, progressive wasting, and high mortality. However, vitamin D supplementation not only prevented but also ameliorated symptoms of colitis in the mice model.”

Human studies have revealed similar associations between vitamin D supplementation and inflammatory bowel disease, such as a study by Jørgensen and colleagues that found a lower risk of relapse in Crohn’s disease, and another by Sharifi and colleagues that showed injectable vitamin D could reduce erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with UC. Still, the investigators suggested that more clinical data are needed, particularly for outcomes after vitamin D therapy. In addition to providing such data, the present trial was also the first of its kind to test oral nano vitamin D₃, which may have better bioavailability than conventional supplements.

The investigators initially recruited 110 patients with active UC who had an ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) of at least 3. After screening, 50 patients were excluded because they had vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL, were already taking a vitamin D supplement, had severe UC requiring hospitalization, or exhibited severe systemic illness. The remaining 60 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 60,000 IU nano vitamin D₃ once daily for 8 days, or placebo. Disease parameters, which were measured at baseline and then again at 4 weeks, included UCDAI, ESR, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The primary outcome was response, defined as a UCDAI reduction of at least 3 points. Secondary outcome measures included stool frequency, stool consistency, and remission (UCDAI less than 3); in addition, the investigators evaluated histologic, endoscopic, fecal, and serum inflammatory markers.

The majority of patients in the study were men (60%), with a mean age of 36 years. Most patients had moderate UC (73.3%), while smaller proportions had severe (18%) or mild (8%) disease. All patients were taking a 5-aminosalicylic acid oral compound and some (16.6%) were also taking azathioprine. At baseline, the mean vitamin D level was 14 ng/mL. Most patients (70%) were diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency, based on measurements below 20 ng/mL. The remaining patients were diagnosed with insufficiency (13%; 20-30 ng/mL) or suboptimal levels (17%; 30-40 ng/mL).

From baseline to 4-week follow-up, median vitamin D level in the supplement group increased from 15.4 to 40.83 ng/mL, compared with a much smaller increase in the placebo group, from 13.45 to 18.85 ng/mL. Compared with the placebo group, significantly more patients given nano vitamin D₃ achieved a UCDAI 3-point reduction (53% vs 13%; P = .001); this translated to a Pearson correlation coefficient (rho) of –0.713, between vitamin D level and UCDAI. Similar, albeit less strong, inverse relationships were detected between vitamin D level and CRP (rho = −0.603) and calprotectin (rho = −0.368).

Benefits observed in the supplement group also extended to stool frequency, stool consistency, and histologic measures. Those who achieved a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL were 4 times more likely to have a UCDAI 3-point reduction than those who did not meet the same criteria (80% vs 20%; P = .038). Independent predictors of response included baseline histologic activity (odds ratio, 1.92), and to a greater extent, vitamin D supplementation (OR, 9.17). No patients achieved remission, which the investigators attributed to the relatively short study duration.

Minor, self-limiting side effects occurred in 13.3% and 10% of patients given the vitamin D supplement and placebo, respectively.

“[T]he present study showed significant improvement in all inflammatory parameters of the disease including clinical, endoscopic, histopathologic, and serum and fecal markers of inflammation, all of which paralleled each other in showing [the benefit of] oral nano vitamin D supplementation,” the investigators concluded. They advised that larger, longer-term studies are needed before the findings can be generalized to all patients with active UC.

The investigators disclosed no external funding or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ahamed R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001233.

Vitamin D supplementation may lead to significant improvements in ulcerative colitis (UC), based on a placebo-controlled trial involving 60 patients with active disease.

Those who achieved vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL were most likely to benefit, reported lead author Rizwan Ahamed Z, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, and colleagues. They noted that the findings contribute much-needed clinical data to a largely theoretical subject area.

“[T]he discovery of vitamin D receptors on lymphocytes, monocytes, and dendritic cells initiated various studies which have highlighted the role of vitamin D in regulating gut mucosal immunity and gut barrier,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “In experimental interleukin (IL)-10 knockout mice models, vitamin D deficiency was found to result in severe colitis, progressive wasting, and high mortality. However, vitamin D supplementation not only prevented but also ameliorated symptoms of colitis in the mice model.”

Human studies have revealed similar associations between vitamin D supplementation and inflammatory bowel disease, such as a study by Jørgensen and colleagues that found a lower risk of relapse in Crohn’s disease, and another by Sharifi and colleagues that showed injectable vitamin D could reduce erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with UC. Still, the investigators suggested that more clinical data are needed, particularly for outcomes after vitamin D therapy. In addition to providing such data, the present trial was also the first of its kind to test oral nano vitamin D₃, which may have better bioavailability than conventional supplements.

The investigators initially recruited 110 patients with active UC who had an ulcerative colitis disease activity index (UCDAI) of at least 3. After screening, 50 patients were excluded because they had vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL, were already taking a vitamin D supplement, had severe UC requiring hospitalization, or exhibited severe systemic illness. The remaining 60 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 60,000 IU nano vitamin D₃ once daily for 8 days, or placebo. Disease parameters, which were measured at baseline and then again at 4 weeks, included UCDAI, ESR, CRP, and fecal calprotectin. The primary outcome was response, defined as a UCDAI reduction of at least 3 points. Secondary outcome measures included stool frequency, stool consistency, and remission (UCDAI less than 3); in addition, the investigators evaluated histologic, endoscopic, fecal, and serum inflammatory markers.

The majority of patients in the study were men (60%), with a mean age of 36 years. Most patients had moderate UC (73.3%), while smaller proportions had severe (18%) or mild (8%) disease. All patients were taking a 5-aminosalicylic acid oral compound and some (16.6%) were also taking azathioprine. At baseline, the mean vitamin D level was 14 ng/mL. Most patients (70%) were diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency, based on measurements below 20 ng/mL. The remaining patients were diagnosed with insufficiency (13%; 20-30 ng/mL) or suboptimal levels (17%; 30-40 ng/mL).

From baseline to 4-week follow-up, median vitamin D level in the supplement group increased from 15.4 to 40.83 ng/mL, compared with a much smaller increase in the placebo group, from 13.45 to 18.85 ng/mL. Compared with the placebo group, significantly more patients given nano vitamin D₃ achieved a UCDAI 3-point reduction (53% vs 13%; P = .001); this translated to a Pearson correlation coefficient (rho) of –0.713, between vitamin D level and UCDAI. Similar, albeit less strong, inverse relationships were detected between vitamin D level and CRP (rho = −0.603) and calprotectin (rho = −0.368).

Benefits observed in the supplement group also extended to stool frequency, stool consistency, and histologic measures. Those who achieved a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL were 4 times more likely to have a UCDAI 3-point reduction than those who did not meet the same criteria (80% vs 20%; P = .038). Independent predictors of response included baseline histologic activity (odds ratio, 1.92), and to a greater extent, vitamin D supplementation (OR, 9.17). No patients achieved remission, which the investigators attributed to the relatively short study duration.

Minor, self-limiting side effects occurred in 13.3% and 10% of patients given the vitamin D supplement and placebo, respectively.

“[T]he present study showed significant improvement in all inflammatory parameters of the disease including clinical, endoscopic, histopathologic, and serum and fecal markers of inflammation, all of which paralleled each other in showing [the benefit of] oral nano vitamin D supplementation,” the investigators concluded. They advised that larger, longer-term studies are needed before the findings can be generalized to all patients with active UC.

The investigators disclosed no external funding or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ahamed R et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001233.

Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.

Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.

­In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m², and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.

Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m², or a combination of the two agents.

For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.

Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).

Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.

SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.

Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.

Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.

­In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m², and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.

Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m², or a combination of the two agents.

For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.

Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).

Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.

SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.

Single-agent therapy with either bevacizumab or pemetrexed is efficacious as maintenance therapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the combination of the two agents offers no survival benefit and is more toxic, results of the randomized ECOG-ACRIN 5508 study show.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

For patients with no disease progression after four cycles of induction chemotherapy who were assigned to one of three maintenance therapy strategies, there were no differences in overall survival between those randomized to monotherapy with pemetrexed or bevacizumab or to a combination of the two agents, although progression-free survival (PFS) was better with the combination, reported Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, from the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues.

The incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was also significantly higher with the combination, compared with bevacizumab monotherapy.

Even in the age of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the front line, “[i]t is clear that maintenance therapy will remain an integral part of the treatment approach to advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The results of ECOG-ACRIN 5508 support the use of either pemetrexed or bevacizumab as a single agent in this setting,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Although the combination of bevacizumab and pemetrexed was associated with a significant improvement in PFS in a randomized trial, the three maintenance strategies have never before been directly compared, Dr. Ramalingam and associates noted.

­In ECOG-ACRIN 5508, 1,516 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who had not received prior systemic therapy were given standard induction chemotherapy, consisting of carboplatin to an area under the curve of 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m², and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for up to four cycles.

Patients without progression after four cycles (874) were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab at 15 mg/kg , pemetrexed 500 mg/m², or a combination of the two agents.

For the primary endpoint of overall survival, with bevacizumab serving as the control group for comparison, the investigators found that, at a median follow-up of 50.6 months, median survival was 15.9 months with pemetrexed, compared with 14.4 months with bevacizumab, a difference that was not statistically significant. Median survival with the combination was 16.4 months and was also not significantly different from bevacizumab.

Median PFS was 4.2 months and 5.1 months for the pemetrexed and bevacizumab groups, respectively, with no significant difference. In contrast, median was 7.5 months with the combination, which was significantly better than controls, with a hazard ratio of 0.67 (P less than .001).

Patients received a median of six maintenance therapy cycles for each of the single agents, and a median of eight for the combinations. The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 29% with bevacizumab, 37% with pemetrexed, and 51% with the combination. The combination was associated with a significantly greater incidence of toxicities, compared with bevacizumab (P less than .001).

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Ramalingam reported a consulting/advisory role for bevacizumab maker Genentech/Roche and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar disclosures.

SOURCE: Ramalingam SS et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01006.

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

A significant proportion of the increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk seen in people with osteoarthritis could be attributable to NSAIDs, new research has suggested.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

Writing in Arthritis & Rheumatology, researchers reported the outcomes of a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 7,743 individuals with osteoarthritis patients and 23,229 age- and sex-matched controls without osteoarthritis.

“The prevailing hypothesis in the OA to CVD relationship has been that OA patients frequently take NSAIDs to control their pain and inflammation and that this may lead to them developing CVD,” wrote Mohammad Atiquzzaman, a PhD student at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and his coauthors. However they commented that no studies had so far examined this directly in patients with osteoarthritis.

Overall, people with osteoarthritis had a significant 23% higher risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with controls, after adjustment for factors such body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and socioeconomic status. They also had a 42% higher risk of congestive heart failure, 17% higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and 14% higher risk of stroke.

NSAID use was five times more common among people with osteoarthritis, and NSAIDs alone were associated with a greater than fourfold higher risk of cardiovascular disease, after adjusting for osteoarthritis and other potential confounders.

When the authors performed modeling to break down the effect of osteoarthritis on CVD risk into the direct effect of osteoarthritis itself and the indirect effect mediated by NSAID use, they concluded that 41% of the total effect of osteoarthritis on cardiovascular risk was mediated by NSAIDs. The effect of NSAIDs was particularly pronounced for stroke, in which cases they estimated that the drugs contributed to 64% of the increased in risk, and in ischemic heart disease, in which they contributed to 56% of the increased risk.

Subgroup analysis suggested that conventional NSAIDs were responsible for around 29% of the total increased risk of cardiovascular disease, while selective COX-2 inhibitors, or coxibs, such as celecoxib, lumiracoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib mediated around 21%. For ischemic heart disease, conventional NSAIDs explained around 45% of the increased risk, while selective coxibs explained around 32% of the risk. Similarly, with congestive heart failure and stroke, the proportion of risk mediated by NSAIDs was higher for conventional NSAIDs, compared with coxibs.


The authors noted that while a number of previous studies have found osteoarthritis is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, theirs was the first study to specifically examine the role that NSAIDs play in that increased risk.

However, they noted that their information on NSAID use was gleaned from prescription claims data, which did not include information on over-the-counter NSAID use. Their analysis was also unable to include information on family history of cardiovascular disease, smoking, and physical activity, which are important cardiovascular disease risk factors. They did observe that the rates of obesity were higher among the osteoarthritis group when compared with controls (29% vs. 20%), and hypertension and COPD were also more common among individuals with osteoarthritis.

There was no outside funding for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Atiquzzaman M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41027

LOS ANGELES – While a large number of older adults take prescription and nonprescription medications to help them sleep, the effect of these medications on dementia risk is unclear, with most researchers advocating a cautious and conservative approach to prescribing.

Nastasic/iStockphoto.com

Research is increasingly revealing a bidirectional relationship between sleep and dementia. Poor sleep – especially from insomnia, sleep deprivation, or obstructive sleep apnea – is known to increase dementia risk. Dementias, meanwhile, are associated with serious circadian rhythm disturbances, leading to nighttime sleep loss and increasing the likelihood of institutionalization.

At the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, researchers presented findings assessing the links between sleep medication use and dementia and also what agents or approaches might safely improve sleep in people with sleep disorders who are at risk for dementia or who have been diagnosed with dementia.
 

Sex- and race-based differences in risk

Yue Leng, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported a link between frequent sleep medication use and later dementia – but only in white adults. Dr. Leng presented findings from the National Institutes of Health–funded Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, which recruited 3,068 subjects aged 70-79 and followed them for 15 years. At baseline, 2.7% of African Americans and 7.7% of whites in the study reported taking sleep medications “often” or “almost always.”

Dr. Leng and her colleagues found that white subjects who reported taking sleep aids five or more times a month at baseline had a nearly 80% higher risk of developing dementia during the course of the study (hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.66), compared with people who reported never taking sleep aids or taking them less frequently.

The researchers saw no between-sex differences for this finding, and adjusted for a variety of genetic and lifestyle confounders. Importantly, no significant increase in dementia risk was seen for black subjects, who made up more than one-third of the cohort.

Dr. Leng told the conference that the researchers could not explain why black participants did not see similarly increased dementia risk. Also, she noted, researchers did not have information on the specific sleep medications people used: benzodiazepines, antihistamines, antidepressants, or other types of drugs. Nonetheless, she told the conference, the findings ratified the cautious approach many dementia experts are already stressing.


“Do we really need to prescribe so many sleep meds to older adults who are already at risk for cognitive impairment?” Dr. Leng said, adding: “I am a big advocate of behavioral sleep interventions.” People with clinical sleep problems “should be referred to sleep centers” for a fuller assessment before medication is prescribed, she said.

Findings from another cohort study, meanwhile, suggest that there could be sex-related differences in how sleep aids affect dementia risk. Investigators at Utah State University in Logan used data from some 3,656 older adults in the Cache County Study on Memory and Aging, an NIH-backed cohort study of white adults in Utah without dementia at baseline who were followed for 12 years.

The investigators, led by doctoral student Elizabeth Vernon, found that men reporting use of sleep medication saw more than threefold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than did men who did not use sleep aids (HR, 3.604; P = .0001).

Women who did not report having sleep disturbance but used sleep-inducing medications were at nearly fourfold greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 3.916; P = .0001). Women who self-reported sleep disturbances at baseline, meanwhile, saw a reduction in Alzheimer’s risk of about one-third associated with the use of sleep medications.

Ms. Vernon told the conference that, despite the finding of risk reduction for this particular group of women, caution in prescribing sleep aids was warranted.

Common sleep drugs linked to cognitive aging

Chris Fox, MD, a researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and his colleagues demonstrated in 2018 that long-term exposure to anticholinergic drugs, a class that includes some antidepressants and antihistamines used to promote sleep, was associated with a higher risk of dementia, while use of benzodiazepines, a class of sedatives used commonly in older people as sleep aids, was not. (Whether benzodiazepine exposure relates to dementia remains controversial.)

At AAIC 2019, Dr. Fox presented findings from a study of 337 brains in a U.K. brain bank, of which 17% and 21% came from users of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs, whose usage history was well documented. Dr. Fox and his colleagues found that, while neither anticholinergic nor benzodiazepine exposure was associated with brain pathology specific to that seen in Alzheimer’s disease, both classes of drugs were associated with “slight signals in neuronal loss” in one brain region, the nucleus basalis of Meynert. Dr. Fox described the drugs as causing “an increase in cognitive aging” which could bear on Alzheimer’s risk without being directly causative.
 

Newer sleep drugs may help Alzheimer’s patients

Scientists working for drug manufacturers presented findings on agents to counter the circadian rhythm disturbances seen in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Margaret Moline, PhD, of Eisai in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., showed some results from a phase 2, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study of the experimental agent lemborexant in 62 subjects aged 60-90 with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease and sleep disturbances. (Lemborexant, an orexin receptor agonist that acts to regulate wakefulness, is being investigated in a broad range of sleep disorders.) Patients were randomized to one of four doses of lemborexant or placebo and wore a device for sleep monitoring. Nighttime activity indicating arousal was significantly lower for people in two dosage arms, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo, and treatment groups saw trends toward less sleep fragmentation and higher total sleep time, Dr. Moline told the conference.

Suvorexant (Belsomra), the only orexin receptor antagonist currently licensed as a sleep aid, is also being tested in people with Alzheimer’s disease. At AAIC 2019, Joseph Herring, MD, PhD, of Merck in Kenilworth, N.J., presented results from a placebo-controlled trial of 277 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and insomnia, and reported that treatment with 10 or 20 mg of suvorexant over 4 weeks was associated with about an extra half hour of total nightly sleep, with a 73-minute mean increase from baseline, compared with 45 minutes for patients receiving placebo (95% CI, 11-45; P less than .005).
 

Trazodone linked to slower cognitive decline

An inexpensive antidepressant used in low doses as a sleep aid, including in people with Alzheimer’s disease, was associated with a delay in cognitive decline in older adults, according to results from a retrospective study. Elissaios Karageorgiou, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the Neurological Institute of Athens presented results derived from two cohorts: patients enrolled at the UCSF Memory and Aging Center and women enrolled in the Study for Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) in Women. The investigators were able to identify trazodone users in the studies (with two or more contiguous study visits reporting trazodone use) and match them with control patients from the same cohorts who did not use trazodone.

Trazodone was studied because previous research suggests it increases total sleep time in patients with Alzheimer’s disease without affecting next-day cognitive performance.

Trazodone-using patients in the UCSF cohort (n = 25) saw significantly less decline in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores over 4 years, compared with nonusers (0.27 vs. 0.70 points per year; P = .023), an effect that remained statistically significant even after adjusting for sedative and stimulant use and the expected progression of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Importantly, the slower decline was seen only among subjects with sleep complaints at baseline and especially those whose sleep improved over time, suggesting that the cognitive benefit was mediated by improved sleep.

In the SOF cohort of 46 trazodone users matched with 148 nonusers, no significant protective or negative effect related to long-term trazodone use was found using the MMSE or the Trails Making Test. In this analysis, however, baseline and longitudinal sleep quality was not captured in the group-matching process, neither was the use of other medications. The patient group was slightly older, and all patients were women.

Dr. Karageorgiou said in an interview that the link between improved sleep, trazodone, and cognition needs to be validated in prospective intervention studies. Trazodone, he said, appears to work best in people with a specific type of insomnia characterized by cortical and behavioral hyperarousal, and its cognitive effect appears limited to people whose sleep improves with treatment. “You’re not going to see long-term cognitive benefits if it’s not improving your sleep,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “So, whether trazodone improves sleep or not in a patient after a few months can be an early indicator for the clinician to continue using it or suspend it, because it is unlikely to help their cognition otherwise.”

He stressed that physicians need to be broadly focused on improving sleep to help patients with, or at risk for, dementia by consolidating their sleep rhythms.

“Trazodone is not the magic bullet, and I don’t think we will ever have a magic bullet,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “Because when our brain degenerates, it’s not just one chemical, or one system, it’s many. And our body changes as well. The important thing is to help the patient consolidate their rhythms, whether through light therapy, daily exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, or other evidence-based interventions and their combination. The same applies for a person with dementia as for the rest of us.”

None of the investigators outside of the industry-sponsored studies had relevant disclosures.

LOS ANGELES – While a large number of older adults take prescription and nonprescription medications to help them sleep, the effect of these medications on dementia risk is unclear, with most researchers advocating a cautious and conservative approach to prescribing.

Nastasic/iStockphoto.com

Research is increasingly revealing a bidirectional relationship between sleep and dementia. Poor sleep – especially from insomnia, sleep deprivation, or obstructive sleep apnea – is known to increase dementia risk. Dementias, meanwhile, are associated with serious circadian rhythm disturbances, leading to nighttime sleep loss and increasing the likelihood of institutionalization.

At the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, researchers presented findings assessing the links between sleep medication use and dementia and also what agents or approaches might safely improve sleep in people with sleep disorders who are at risk for dementia or who have been diagnosed with dementia.
 

Sex- and race-based differences in risk

Yue Leng, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported a link between frequent sleep medication use and later dementia – but only in white adults. Dr. Leng presented findings from the National Institutes of Health–funded Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, which recruited 3,068 subjects aged 70-79 and followed them for 15 years. At baseline, 2.7% of African Americans and 7.7% of whites in the study reported taking sleep medications “often” or “almost always.”

Dr. Leng and her colleagues found that white subjects who reported taking sleep aids five or more times a month at baseline had a nearly 80% higher risk of developing dementia during the course of the study (hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.66), compared with people who reported never taking sleep aids or taking them less frequently.

The researchers saw no between-sex differences for this finding, and adjusted for a variety of genetic and lifestyle confounders. Importantly, no significant increase in dementia risk was seen for black subjects, who made up more than one-third of the cohort.

Dr. Leng told the conference that the researchers could not explain why black participants did not see similarly increased dementia risk. Also, she noted, researchers did not have information on the specific sleep medications people used: benzodiazepines, antihistamines, antidepressants, or other types of drugs. Nonetheless, she told the conference, the findings ratified the cautious approach many dementia experts are already stressing.


“Do we really need to prescribe so many sleep meds to older adults who are already at risk for cognitive impairment?” Dr. Leng said, adding: “I am a big advocate of behavioral sleep interventions.” People with clinical sleep problems “should be referred to sleep centers” for a fuller assessment before medication is prescribed, she said.

Findings from another cohort study, meanwhile, suggest that there could be sex-related differences in how sleep aids affect dementia risk. Investigators at Utah State University in Logan used data from some 3,656 older adults in the Cache County Study on Memory and Aging, an NIH-backed cohort study of white adults in Utah without dementia at baseline who were followed for 12 years.

The investigators, led by doctoral student Elizabeth Vernon, found that men reporting use of sleep medication saw more than threefold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than did men who did not use sleep aids (HR, 3.604; P = .0001).

Women who did not report having sleep disturbance but used sleep-inducing medications were at nearly fourfold greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 3.916; P = .0001). Women who self-reported sleep disturbances at baseline, meanwhile, saw a reduction in Alzheimer’s risk of about one-third associated with the use of sleep medications.

Ms. Vernon told the conference that, despite the finding of risk reduction for this particular group of women, caution in prescribing sleep aids was warranted.

Common sleep drugs linked to cognitive aging

Chris Fox, MD, a researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and his colleagues demonstrated in 2018 that long-term exposure to anticholinergic drugs, a class that includes some antidepressants and antihistamines used to promote sleep, was associated with a higher risk of dementia, while use of benzodiazepines, a class of sedatives used commonly in older people as sleep aids, was not. (Whether benzodiazepine exposure relates to dementia remains controversial.)

At AAIC 2019, Dr. Fox presented findings from a study of 337 brains in a U.K. brain bank, of which 17% and 21% came from users of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs, whose usage history was well documented. Dr. Fox and his colleagues found that, while neither anticholinergic nor benzodiazepine exposure was associated with brain pathology specific to that seen in Alzheimer’s disease, both classes of drugs were associated with “slight signals in neuronal loss” in one brain region, the nucleus basalis of Meynert. Dr. Fox described the drugs as causing “an increase in cognitive aging” which could bear on Alzheimer’s risk without being directly causative.
 

Newer sleep drugs may help Alzheimer’s patients

Scientists working for drug manufacturers presented findings on agents to counter the circadian rhythm disturbances seen in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Margaret Moline, PhD, of Eisai in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., showed some results from a phase 2, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study of the experimental agent lemborexant in 62 subjects aged 60-90 with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease and sleep disturbances. (Lemborexant, an orexin receptor agonist that acts to regulate wakefulness, is being investigated in a broad range of sleep disorders.) Patients were randomized to one of four doses of lemborexant or placebo and wore a device for sleep monitoring. Nighttime activity indicating arousal was significantly lower for people in two dosage arms, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo, and treatment groups saw trends toward less sleep fragmentation and higher total sleep time, Dr. Moline told the conference.

Suvorexant (Belsomra), the only orexin receptor antagonist currently licensed as a sleep aid, is also being tested in people with Alzheimer’s disease. At AAIC 2019, Joseph Herring, MD, PhD, of Merck in Kenilworth, N.J., presented results from a placebo-controlled trial of 277 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and insomnia, and reported that treatment with 10 or 20 mg of suvorexant over 4 weeks was associated with about an extra half hour of total nightly sleep, with a 73-minute mean increase from baseline, compared with 45 minutes for patients receiving placebo (95% CI, 11-45; P less than .005).
 

Trazodone linked to slower cognitive decline

An inexpensive antidepressant used in low doses as a sleep aid, including in people with Alzheimer’s disease, was associated with a delay in cognitive decline in older adults, according to results from a retrospective study. Elissaios Karageorgiou, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the Neurological Institute of Athens presented results derived from two cohorts: patients enrolled at the UCSF Memory and Aging Center and women enrolled in the Study for Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) in Women. The investigators were able to identify trazodone users in the studies (with two or more contiguous study visits reporting trazodone use) and match them with control patients from the same cohorts who did not use trazodone.

Trazodone was studied because previous research suggests it increases total sleep time in patients with Alzheimer’s disease without affecting next-day cognitive performance.

Trazodone-using patients in the UCSF cohort (n = 25) saw significantly less decline in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores over 4 years, compared with nonusers (0.27 vs. 0.70 points per year; P = .023), an effect that remained statistically significant even after adjusting for sedative and stimulant use and the expected progression of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Importantly, the slower decline was seen only among subjects with sleep complaints at baseline and especially those whose sleep improved over time, suggesting that the cognitive benefit was mediated by improved sleep.

In the SOF cohort of 46 trazodone users matched with 148 nonusers, no significant protective or negative effect related to long-term trazodone use was found using the MMSE or the Trails Making Test. In this analysis, however, baseline and longitudinal sleep quality was not captured in the group-matching process, neither was the use of other medications. The patient group was slightly older, and all patients were women.

Dr. Karageorgiou said in an interview that the link between improved sleep, trazodone, and cognition needs to be validated in prospective intervention studies. Trazodone, he said, appears to work best in people with a specific type of insomnia characterized by cortical and behavioral hyperarousal, and its cognitive effect appears limited to people whose sleep improves with treatment. “You’re not going to see long-term cognitive benefits if it’s not improving your sleep,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “So, whether trazodone improves sleep or not in a patient after a few months can be an early indicator for the clinician to continue using it or suspend it, because it is unlikely to help their cognition otherwise.”

He stressed that physicians need to be broadly focused on improving sleep to help patients with, or at risk for, dementia by consolidating their sleep rhythms.

“Trazodone is not the magic bullet, and I don’t think we will ever have a magic bullet,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “Because when our brain degenerates, it’s not just one chemical, or one system, it’s many. And our body changes as well. The important thing is to help the patient consolidate their rhythms, whether through light therapy, daily exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, or other evidence-based interventions and their combination. The same applies for a person with dementia as for the rest of us.”

None of the investigators outside of the industry-sponsored studies had relevant disclosures.

LOS ANGELES – While a large number of older adults take prescription and nonprescription medications to help them sleep, the effect of these medications on dementia risk is unclear, with most researchers advocating a cautious and conservative approach to prescribing.

Nastasic/iStockphoto.com

Research is increasingly revealing a bidirectional relationship between sleep and dementia. Poor sleep – especially from insomnia, sleep deprivation, or obstructive sleep apnea – is known to increase dementia risk. Dementias, meanwhile, are associated with serious circadian rhythm disturbances, leading to nighttime sleep loss and increasing the likelihood of institutionalization.

At the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, researchers presented findings assessing the links between sleep medication use and dementia and also what agents or approaches might safely improve sleep in people with sleep disorders who are at risk for dementia or who have been diagnosed with dementia.
 

Sex- and race-based differences in risk

Yue Leng, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, reported a link between frequent sleep medication use and later dementia – but only in white adults. Dr. Leng presented findings from the National Institutes of Health–funded Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, which recruited 3,068 subjects aged 70-79 and followed them for 15 years. At baseline, 2.7% of African Americans and 7.7% of whites in the study reported taking sleep medications “often” or “almost always.”

Dr. Leng and her colleagues found that white subjects who reported taking sleep aids five or more times a month at baseline had a nearly 80% higher risk of developing dementia during the course of the study (hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.66), compared with people who reported never taking sleep aids or taking them less frequently.

The researchers saw no between-sex differences for this finding, and adjusted for a variety of genetic and lifestyle confounders. Importantly, no significant increase in dementia risk was seen for black subjects, who made up more than one-third of the cohort.

Dr. Leng told the conference that the researchers could not explain why black participants did not see similarly increased dementia risk. Also, she noted, researchers did not have information on the specific sleep medications people used: benzodiazepines, antihistamines, antidepressants, or other types of drugs. Nonetheless, she told the conference, the findings ratified the cautious approach many dementia experts are already stressing.


“Do we really need to prescribe so many sleep meds to older adults who are already at risk for cognitive impairment?” Dr. Leng said, adding: “I am a big advocate of behavioral sleep interventions.” People with clinical sleep problems “should be referred to sleep centers” for a fuller assessment before medication is prescribed, she said.

Findings from another cohort study, meanwhile, suggest that there could be sex-related differences in how sleep aids affect dementia risk. Investigators at Utah State University in Logan used data from some 3,656 older adults in the Cache County Study on Memory and Aging, an NIH-backed cohort study of white adults in Utah without dementia at baseline who were followed for 12 years.

The investigators, led by doctoral student Elizabeth Vernon, found that men reporting use of sleep medication saw more than threefold higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease than did men who did not use sleep aids (HR, 3.604; P = .0001).

Women who did not report having sleep disturbance but used sleep-inducing medications were at nearly fourfold greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 3.916; P = .0001). Women who self-reported sleep disturbances at baseline, meanwhile, saw a reduction in Alzheimer’s risk of about one-third associated with the use of sleep medications.

Ms. Vernon told the conference that, despite the finding of risk reduction for this particular group of women, caution in prescribing sleep aids was warranted.

Common sleep drugs linked to cognitive aging

Chris Fox, MD, a researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and his colleagues demonstrated in 2018 that long-term exposure to anticholinergic drugs, a class that includes some antidepressants and antihistamines used to promote sleep, was associated with a higher risk of dementia, while use of benzodiazepines, a class of sedatives used commonly in older people as sleep aids, was not. (Whether benzodiazepine exposure relates to dementia remains controversial.)

At AAIC 2019, Dr. Fox presented findings from a study of 337 brains in a U.K. brain bank, of which 17% and 21% came from users of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs, whose usage history was well documented. Dr. Fox and his colleagues found that, while neither anticholinergic nor benzodiazepine exposure was associated with brain pathology specific to that seen in Alzheimer’s disease, both classes of drugs were associated with “slight signals in neuronal loss” in one brain region, the nucleus basalis of Meynert. Dr. Fox described the drugs as causing “an increase in cognitive aging” which could bear on Alzheimer’s risk without being directly causative.
 

Newer sleep drugs may help Alzheimer’s patients

Scientists working for drug manufacturers presented findings on agents to counter the circadian rhythm disturbances seen in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Margaret Moline, PhD, of Eisai in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., showed some results from a phase 2, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study of the experimental agent lemborexant in 62 subjects aged 60-90 with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease and sleep disturbances. (Lemborexant, an orexin receptor agonist that acts to regulate wakefulness, is being investigated in a broad range of sleep disorders.) Patients were randomized to one of four doses of lemborexant or placebo and wore a device for sleep monitoring. Nighttime activity indicating arousal was significantly lower for people in two dosage arms, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo, and treatment groups saw trends toward less sleep fragmentation and higher total sleep time, Dr. Moline told the conference.

Suvorexant (Belsomra), the only orexin receptor antagonist currently licensed as a sleep aid, is also being tested in people with Alzheimer’s disease. At AAIC 2019, Joseph Herring, MD, PhD, of Merck in Kenilworth, N.J., presented results from a placebo-controlled trial of 277 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and insomnia, and reported that treatment with 10 or 20 mg of suvorexant over 4 weeks was associated with about an extra half hour of total nightly sleep, with a 73-minute mean increase from baseline, compared with 45 minutes for patients receiving placebo (95% CI, 11-45; P less than .005).
 

Trazodone linked to slower cognitive decline

An inexpensive antidepressant used in low doses as a sleep aid, including in people with Alzheimer’s disease, was associated with a delay in cognitive decline in older adults, according to results from a retrospective study. Elissaios Karageorgiou, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the Neurological Institute of Athens presented results derived from two cohorts: patients enrolled at the UCSF Memory and Aging Center and women enrolled in the Study for Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) in Women. The investigators were able to identify trazodone users in the studies (with two or more contiguous study visits reporting trazodone use) and match them with control patients from the same cohorts who did not use trazodone.

Trazodone was studied because previous research suggests it increases total sleep time in patients with Alzheimer’s disease without affecting next-day cognitive performance.

Trazodone-using patients in the UCSF cohort (n = 25) saw significantly less decline in Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores over 4 years, compared with nonusers (0.27 vs. 0.70 points per year; P = .023), an effect that remained statistically significant even after adjusting for sedative and stimulant use and the expected progression of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Importantly, the slower decline was seen only among subjects with sleep complaints at baseline and especially those whose sleep improved over time, suggesting that the cognitive benefit was mediated by improved sleep.

In the SOF cohort of 46 trazodone users matched with 148 nonusers, no significant protective or negative effect related to long-term trazodone use was found using the MMSE or the Trails Making Test. In this analysis, however, baseline and longitudinal sleep quality was not captured in the group-matching process, neither was the use of other medications. The patient group was slightly older, and all patients were women.

Dr. Karageorgiou said in an interview that the link between improved sleep, trazodone, and cognition needs to be validated in prospective intervention studies. Trazodone, he said, appears to work best in people with a specific type of insomnia characterized by cortical and behavioral hyperarousal, and its cognitive effect appears limited to people whose sleep improves with treatment. “You’re not going to see long-term cognitive benefits if it’s not improving your sleep,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “So, whether trazodone improves sleep or not in a patient after a few months can be an early indicator for the clinician to continue using it or suspend it, because it is unlikely to help their cognition otherwise.”

He stressed that physicians need to be broadly focused on improving sleep to help patients with, or at risk for, dementia by consolidating their sleep rhythms.

“Trazodone is not the magic bullet, and I don’t think we will ever have a magic bullet,” Dr. Karageorgiou said. “Because when our brain degenerates, it’s not just one chemical, or one system, it’s many. And our body changes as well. The important thing is to help the patient consolidate their rhythms, whether through light therapy, daily exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, or other evidence-based interventions and their combination. The same applies for a person with dementia as for the rest of us.”

None of the investigators outside of the industry-sponsored studies had relevant disclosures.

Despite a large increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed since 2012, too little of the drug is being made available to patients who need it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.

“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”

Investigators examined retail pharmacy data

In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.

Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).

Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018

Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.

Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.

The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).

Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

More can be done

“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”

“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.

The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.

Despite a large increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed since 2012, too little of the drug is being made available to patients who need it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.

“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”

Investigators examined retail pharmacy data

In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.

Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).

Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018

Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.

Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.

The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).

Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

More can be done

“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”

“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.

The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.

Despite a large increase in the number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed since 2012, too little of the drug is being made available to patients who need it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although the CDC recommends that clinicians consider prescribing naloxone, which can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, to patients who receive high-dose opioid prescriptions, one naloxone prescription was dispensed in 2018 for every 69 such patients, according to a Vital Signs investigation published Aug. 6 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Approximately 9 million more naloxone prescriptions could have been dispensed in 2018 if every patient with a high-dose opioid prescription were offered the drug, according to the agency. In addition, the rate at which naloxone is dispensed varies significantly according to region.

“Thousands of Americans are alive today thanks to the use of naloxone,” said Alex M. Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, in a press release. “Giving people a chance to survive an opioid overdose and safely enter recovery is one of the five key pillars of our HHS strategy for ending the overdose epidemic. With help from Congress, the private sector, state, and local governments and communities, targeted access to naloxone has expanded dramatically over the last several years, but today’s CDC report is a reminder that there is much more all of us need to do to save lives.”

Investigators examined retail pharmacy data

In 2017, 47,600 (67.8%) drug overdose deaths in the United States involved opioids. For decades, emergency medical service providers have administered naloxone to patients with suspected drug overdose. A major focus of public health initiatives intended to address the opioid overdose crisis has been to increase access to naloxone through clinician prescribing and pharmacy dispensing. The CDC recommends considering prescribing naloxone to patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, those receiving opioid dosages of 50 morphine milligram equivalents per day or greater (that is, high-dose prescriptions), and those who are using benzodiazepines concurrently.

Investigators at the CDC examined retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a company that maintains information on prescriptions from approximately 50,400 retail pharmacies. They extracted data from 2012 through 2018 to analyze naloxone dispensing by region, urban versus rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics (for example, age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment).

Dispensations doubled from 2017 to 2018

Naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies increased from 0.4 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2012 to 170.2 prescriptions per 100,000 in 2018. From 2017 to 2018 alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased by 106%.

Despite consistency among state laws, naloxone dispensation varied by region. The average rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 0.2 in the lowest quartile to 2.9 in the highest quartile. In 2018, the rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions ranged from 1.5 in metropolitan counties and 1.6 in the Northeast to 1.2 in rural counties and 1.3 in the Midwest. Rural counties were nearly three times more likely to be low-dispensing counties, compared with metropolitan counties.

The rate of naloxone prescriptions per 100 high-dose opioid prescriptions also varied by provider specialty. This rate was lowest among surgeons (0.2) and highest among psychiatrists (12.9).

Most naloxone prescriptions entailed out-of-pocket costs. About 71% of prescriptions paid for by Medicare entailed out-of-pocket costs, compared with 43.8% of prescriptions paid for by Medicaid, and 41.5% of prescriptions paid for by commercial insurance.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

More can be done

“It is clear from the data that there is still much needed education around the important role naloxone plays in reducing overdose deaths,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the CDC, in a press release. “The time is now to ensure all individuals who are prescribed high-dose opioids also receive naloxone as a potential life-saving intervention. As we aggressively confront what is the public health crisis of our time, CDC will continue to stress with health care providers the benefit of making this overdose-reversing medicine available to patients.”

“While we’ve seen these important increases [in naloxone prescriptions], we are not as far along as we’d like to be,” said Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC, during a press conference. “Cost is one of the issues, but I think awareness is another.” These data should prompt pharmacies to make sure that they stock naloxone and remind clinicians to consider naloxone when they prescribe opioids, she added. Patients and their family members should be aware of naloxone and ask their health care providers about it. “We’d really like to see the increase [in naloxone prescriptions] move much more rapidly,” she concluded.

The investigators disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Guy GP et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 6.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mededge.com

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mededge.com

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

LOS ANGELES – Benzodiazepines and hypnotics, including the so-called “Z drugs,” don’t significantly increase the pathological features typical of Alzheimer’s disease but long-term users may experience some neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, Chris Fox, MD, reported at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

The nucleus basalis is rich in cholinergic neurons and associated with arousing stimuli, including positive and aversive appetite, sustained attention, and the interplay of reality and visual perception.

“Neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis offers mechanisms for the impact of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use on the aging brain and highlights important areas for future research,” said Dr. Fox, professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“The risk [for taking a Z drug] in the United Kingdom is high, with about 7.5 million older adults using potentially inappropriately prescribed anticholinergic and/or Z-drug medications. Despite well-documented cognitive impairment associated with these medicines, hypnotics are still used for long durations and exceed the recommended limits,” Dr. Fox said. “There’s no association with better cognition, quality of life, or improved behavior when they are given to people with dementia. In fact, we’ve seen a 60% increased risk of hip fractures – an increase from a 3% to a 15% yearly risk.”

Dr. Fox and colleagues studied the brains of 337 subjects who were included in the U.K. Medical Research Council’s Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS). The study was intended to explore the incidence of dementia in the United Kingdom, examine incidence variation among regions, and explore factors increasing dementia risk and rate of progression.

The first study, which began in 1989 and lasted until 2015, followed subjects older than 65 years for up to 12 years. Each subject was regularly interviewed and underwent cognitive testing about every 1.5 years. Benzodiazepine use was considered an especially important aspect, because the medications are frequently used in the elderly and seem linked to injuries and cognitive status at last follow-up.

In CFAS, 21% of subjects reported at least one incidence of anticholinergic use, and 12% reported recurrent use. Another 17% reported any hypnotic use, and 11% reported recurrent use. The main indications were as an antidepressant (13%), for urological issues (4%), as antiparkinsonism drugs (1%), as antipsychotics (3%), and as antihistamines (3%). Overall, 18% reported concurrent use of benzodiazepines and hypnotics. At time of death, 46% had a diagnosis of dementia.

“Those reporting benzodiazepine use were more likely to be women and to have depression or sleep problems,” Dr. Fox noted, although he didn’t give specific hazard ratios. After adjustment for numerous factors, including age, sex, stroke, hypertension, depression, anxiety, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, duration of sleep problems, education, and smoking, he found no statistically increased risk of amyloid brain plaques or tau tangles, the pathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic use was associated with a significant 60% reduction in cortical atrophy (odds ratio, 0.40) and recurrent use with a 61% reduction in amyloid angiopathy (OR, 0.39).

However, both medication classes were associated with greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis. Recurrent use of anticholinergic drugs increased neuronal loss by 300% (OR, 4.12), while any use nearly tripled it (OR, 2.87). Recurrent use of benzodiazepines was associated with increased neuronal loss in the region (OR, 3.76) as well. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance. But there was a statistically significant association with any use of benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis (OR, 6.84).

“We did find greater neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis associated with benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drugs use,” Dr. Fox said. “The nucleus basalis is rich in neurons that stimulate the cholinergic system of the neocortex. Neuronal loss in this region is thought to occur in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Other studies have suggested that volume loss in the basal forebrain cholinergic site leads to widespread cortical atrophy in patients with mild cognitive impairment. We did not observe the widespread cortical atrophy, however.

“Given that the strongest associations were observed for benzodiazepines and neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis, it may be that the drugs were prescribed to treat the symptoms of ‘cholinergic deficiency syndrome,’ Our findings suggest that the symptoms of dementia lead to an increase of benzodiazepines as opposed to the medications actually causing Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

Dr. Fox reported no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mededge.com

SOURCE: Fox C et al. AAIC 2019, Abstract 34017.

Nonadherence is a significant problem that has a negative impact on both patients and public health. Patients with multiple diseases often have complicated medication regimens, which can be difficult for them to manage. Unfortunately, nonadherence in these high-risk patients can have drastic consequences, including disease progression, hospitalization, and death, resulting in billions of dollars in unnecessary costs nationwide.^1,2 The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care (Figure) is a novel care model developed at the Gallup Indian Medical Center (GIMC) in New Mexico to address these problems by positioning pharmacy as a proactive service. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to improve adherence and patient outcomes and to encourage communication among the patient, pharmacists, prescribers, and other health care team members.

Pharmacists are central to managing patients’ medication therapies and coordinating communication among the health care providers (HCPs).^1,3 Medication therapy management (MTM), a required component of Medicare Part D plans, helps ensure appropriate drug use and reduce the risk of adverse events.³ Since pharmacists receive prescriptions from all of the patient’s HCPs, patients may see pharmacists more often than they see any other HCP. GIMC is currently piloting a new clinic, the Medication Optimization, Synchronization, and Adherence Improvement Clinic (MOSAIC), that was created to implement the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care. MOSAIC aims to provide proactive pharmacy services and continuous MTM to high-risk patients and will enable the effectiveness of this new pharmaceutical care model to be assessed.

Methods

Studies have identified certain populations who are at an increased risk for nonadherence: the elderly, patients with complex or extensive medication regimens, patients with multiple chronic medical conditions, substance misusers, certain ethnicities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, patients with limited literacy, and the homeless.^2,4 Federal regulations require that Medicare Part D plans target beneficiaries who meet specific criteria for MTM programs. Under these rules, plans must target beneficiaries with ≥ 3 chronic diseases and ≥ 8 chronic medications, although plans also may include patients with fewer medications and diseases.³ Although the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care is postulated to be an accurate model for the ideal care of all patients, initial implementation should be targeted toward populations who are likely to benefit the most from intervention. For these reasons, elderly Native American patients who have ≥ 2 chronic diseases and who take ≥ 5 chronic medications were targeted for initial enrollment in MOSAIC at GIMC.

Overview

In MOSAIC, pharmacists act as the hub of the pharmaceutical care wheel. Pharmacists work to ensure optimization of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan—the rim of the wheel. As a part of this optimization process, MOSAIC pharmacists facilitate synchronization of the patient’s prescriptions to a monthly or quarterly target fill date. The patient’s current medication therapy is organized, and pharmacists track which medications are due to be filled instead of depending on the patient to request each prescription refill. This process effectively changes pharmacy from a requested service to a provided service.

Pharmacists also monitor the air in the tire to promote adherence. This is accomplished by providing efficient monthly or quarterly telephone or in-person consultations, which helps the patient better understand his or her comprehensive, integrated care plan. MOSAIC eliminates the possibility of nonadherence due to running out of refills. Specialized packaging, such as pill boxes or blister packs, can also improve adherence for certain patients.

MOSAIC ensures that pharmacists stay connected with the spokes, which represent a patient’s numerous prescribers, and close communication loops. Pharmacists can make prescribers aware of potential gaps or overlaps in treatment and assist them in the optimization and development of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan. Pharmacists also make sure that the patient’s medication profile is current and accurate in the electronic health record (EHR). Any pertinent information discovered during MOSAIC encounters, such as abnormal laboratory results or changes in medications or disease, is documented in an EHR note. The patient’s prescribers are made aware of this information by tagging them as additional signers to the note in the EHR.

Keeping patients—the tires—healthy will ensure smooth operation of the vehicle and have a positive impact on public health. MOSAIC is expected to not only improve individual patient outcomes, but also decrease health care costs for patients and society due to nonadherence, suboptimal regimens, stockpiled home medications, and preventable hospital admissions.

Traditionally, pharmacy has been a requested service: A patient requests each of their prescriptions to be refilled, and the pharmacy fills the prescription. Ideally, pharmacy must become a provided service, with pharmacists keeping track of when a patient’s medications are due to be filled and actively looking for medication therapy optimization opportunities. This is accomplished by synchronizing the patient’s medications to the same monthly or quarterly fill date; screening for any potentially inappropriate medications, including high-risk medications in elderly patients, duplications, and omissions; verifying any medication changes with the patient each fill; and then providing all needed medications to the patient at a scheduled time.

To facilitate this process, custom software was developed for MOSAIC. In addition, a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was drafted that allowed MOSAIC pharmacists to make certain medication therapy optimizations on behalf of the patient’s primary care provider. As part of this CPA, pharmacists also may order and act on certain laboratory tests, which helps to monitor disease progression, ensure safe medication use, and meet Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. As a novel model of pharmaceutical care, the effects of this approach are not yet known; however, research suggests that increased communication among HCPs and patient-centered approaches to care are beneficial to patient outcomes, adherence, and public health.^1,5

Investigated Outcomes

As patients continue to enroll in MOSAIC, the effectiveness of the clinic will be evaluated. Specifically, quality of life, patient and HCP satisfaction with the program, adherence metrics, hospitalization rates, and all-cause mortality will be assessed for patients enrolled in MOSAIC as well as similar patients who are not enrolled in MOSAIC. Also, pharmacists will log all recommended medication therapy interventions so that the optimization component of MOSAIC may be quantified. GPRA measures and the financial implications of the interventions made by MOSAIC will also be evaluated.

Discussion

There are a number of factors, such as MTM services and interprofessional care teams, that research has shown to independently improve patient outcomes, adherence, or public health. By synthesizing these factors, a completely new approach—the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care—was developed. This model presents a radical departure from traditional, requested-service practices and posits pharmacy as a provided service instead. Although the ideas of MTM and interprofessional care teams are not new, there has never been a practical way to truly integrate community pharmacists into the patient care team or to ensure adequate communication among all of the patient’s HCPs. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care includes public health as one of its core components and provides a framework for pharmacies to meaningfully impact health outcomes for patients.

The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to minimize the likelihood of nonadherence. Despite this, patients might willfully choose to be nonadherent, forget to take their medications, or neglect to pick up their medications. Additionally, in health care systems where patients must pay for their medications, prescription drug costs might be a barrier to adherence.

When nonadherence is suspected, the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care directs pharmacists in MOSAIC to take action. First, the underlying cause of the nonadherence must be determined. For example, if a patient is nonadherent because of an adverse drug reaction, a therapy change may be indicated. If a patient is nonadherent due to apathy toward their health or therapy, the patient may benefit from education about their condition and treatment options; thus, the patient can make shared, informed decisions and feel more actively involved with his or her health. If a patients is nonadherent due to forgetfulness, adherence packaging dispense methods should be considered as an alternative to traditional vials. Depending on the services offered by a given pharmacy, adherence packaging options may include blister packs, pill boxes, or strips prepared by robotic dispensing systems. The use of medication reminders, whether in the form of a smartphone application or a simple alarm clock, should be discussed with the patient. If the patient does not pick up their medications on time, a pharmacist can contact the patient to determine why the medications were not picked up and to assess any nonadherence. In this case, mail order pharmacy services, if available, should be offered to patients as a more convenient option.

The medication regimen optimization component of MOSAIC helps reduce the workload of primary care providers and allows pharmacists to act autonomously based on clinical judgment, within the scope of the CPA. This can prevent delays in care caused by no refills remaining on a prescription. The laboratory monitoring component allows pharmacists to track diseases and take action if necessary, which should have a favorable impact on GPRA measures. Medication optimizations can reduce wasted resources by identifying cost-saving formulary alternatives, potentially inappropriate medications, and suboptimal doses.

Since many Indian Health Service beneficiaries do not have private insurance and therefore do not generate third-party reimbursements for services and care provided by GIMC, keeping patients healthy and out of the hospital is a top priority. As more patients are enrolled in MOSAIC, the program is expected to have a favorable impact on pharmacy workload and workflow as well. Prescriptions are anticipated and filled in advance, which decreases the amount of patients calling and presenting to the pharmacy for same-day refill requests. Scheduling when MOSAIC patients’ medications are to be filled and dispensed creates a predictable workload that allows the pharmacy staff to be managed more efficiently.

Conclusion

Adherence is the responsibility of the patient, but the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care aims to provide pharmacists with a framework to monitor and encourage adherence in their patients. By taking this patient-centered approach, MOSAIC is expected to improve outcomes and decrease hospitalizations for high-risk patients who simply need a little extra help with their medications.

Nonadherence is a significant problem that has a negative impact on both patients and public health. Patients with multiple diseases often have complicated medication regimens, which can be difficult for them to manage. Unfortunately, nonadherence in these high-risk patients can have drastic consequences, including disease progression, hospitalization, and death, resulting in billions of dollars in unnecessary costs nationwide.^1,2 The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care (Figure) is a novel care model developed at the Gallup Indian Medical Center (GIMC) in New Mexico to address these problems by positioning pharmacy as a proactive service. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to improve adherence and patient outcomes and to encourage communication among the patient, pharmacists, prescribers, and other health care team members.

Pharmacists are central to managing patients’ medication therapies and coordinating communication among the health care providers (HCPs).^1,3 Medication therapy management (MTM), a required component of Medicare Part D plans, helps ensure appropriate drug use and reduce the risk of adverse events.³ Since pharmacists receive prescriptions from all of the patient’s HCPs, patients may see pharmacists more often than they see any other HCP. GIMC is currently piloting a new clinic, the Medication Optimization, Synchronization, and Adherence Improvement Clinic (MOSAIC), that was created to implement the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care. MOSAIC aims to provide proactive pharmacy services and continuous MTM to high-risk patients and will enable the effectiveness of this new pharmaceutical care model to be assessed.

Methods

Studies have identified certain populations who are at an increased risk for nonadherence: the elderly, patients with complex or extensive medication regimens, patients with multiple chronic medical conditions, substance misusers, certain ethnicities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, patients with limited literacy, and the homeless.^2,4 Federal regulations require that Medicare Part D plans target beneficiaries who meet specific criteria for MTM programs. Under these rules, plans must target beneficiaries with ≥ 3 chronic diseases and ≥ 8 chronic medications, although plans also may include patients with fewer medications and diseases.³ Although the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care is postulated to be an accurate model for the ideal care of all patients, initial implementation should be targeted toward populations who are likely to benefit the most from intervention. For these reasons, elderly Native American patients who have ≥ 2 chronic diseases and who take ≥ 5 chronic medications were targeted for initial enrollment in MOSAIC at GIMC.

Overview

In MOSAIC, pharmacists act as the hub of the pharmaceutical care wheel. Pharmacists work to ensure optimization of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan—the rim of the wheel. As a part of this optimization process, MOSAIC pharmacists facilitate synchronization of the patient’s prescriptions to a monthly or quarterly target fill date. The patient’s current medication therapy is organized, and pharmacists track which medications are due to be filled instead of depending on the patient to request each prescription refill. This process effectively changes pharmacy from a requested service to a provided service.

Pharmacists also monitor the air in the tire to promote adherence. This is accomplished by providing efficient monthly or quarterly telephone or in-person consultations, which helps the patient better understand his or her comprehensive, integrated care plan. MOSAIC eliminates the possibility of nonadherence due to running out of refills. Specialized packaging, such as pill boxes or blister packs, can also improve adherence for certain patients.

MOSAIC ensures that pharmacists stay connected with the spokes, which represent a patient’s numerous prescribers, and close communication loops. Pharmacists can make prescribers aware of potential gaps or overlaps in treatment and assist them in the optimization and development of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan. Pharmacists also make sure that the patient’s medication profile is current and accurate in the electronic health record (EHR). Any pertinent information discovered during MOSAIC encounters, such as abnormal laboratory results or changes in medications or disease, is documented in an EHR note. The patient’s prescribers are made aware of this information by tagging them as additional signers to the note in the EHR.

Keeping patients—the tires—healthy will ensure smooth operation of the vehicle and have a positive impact on public health. MOSAIC is expected to not only improve individual patient outcomes, but also decrease health care costs for patients and society due to nonadherence, suboptimal regimens, stockpiled home medications, and preventable hospital admissions.

Traditionally, pharmacy has been a requested service: A patient requests each of their prescriptions to be refilled, and the pharmacy fills the prescription. Ideally, pharmacy must become a provided service, with pharmacists keeping track of when a patient’s medications are due to be filled and actively looking for medication therapy optimization opportunities. This is accomplished by synchronizing the patient’s medications to the same monthly or quarterly fill date; screening for any potentially inappropriate medications, including high-risk medications in elderly patients, duplications, and omissions; verifying any medication changes with the patient each fill; and then providing all needed medications to the patient at a scheduled time.

To facilitate this process, custom software was developed for MOSAIC. In addition, a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was drafted that allowed MOSAIC pharmacists to make certain medication therapy optimizations on behalf of the patient’s primary care provider. As part of this CPA, pharmacists also may order and act on certain laboratory tests, which helps to monitor disease progression, ensure safe medication use, and meet Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. As a novel model of pharmaceutical care, the effects of this approach are not yet known; however, research suggests that increased communication among HCPs and patient-centered approaches to care are beneficial to patient outcomes, adherence, and public health.^1,5

Investigated Outcomes

As patients continue to enroll in MOSAIC, the effectiveness of the clinic will be evaluated. Specifically, quality of life, patient and HCP satisfaction with the program, adherence metrics, hospitalization rates, and all-cause mortality will be assessed for patients enrolled in MOSAIC as well as similar patients who are not enrolled in MOSAIC. Also, pharmacists will log all recommended medication therapy interventions so that the optimization component of MOSAIC may be quantified. GPRA measures and the financial implications of the interventions made by MOSAIC will also be evaluated.

Discussion

There are a number of factors, such as MTM services and interprofessional care teams, that research has shown to independently improve patient outcomes, adherence, or public health. By synthesizing these factors, a completely new approach—the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care—was developed. This model presents a radical departure from traditional, requested-service practices and posits pharmacy as a provided service instead. Although the ideas of MTM and interprofessional care teams are not new, there has never been a practical way to truly integrate community pharmacists into the patient care team or to ensure adequate communication among all of the patient’s HCPs. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care includes public health as one of its core components and provides a framework for pharmacies to meaningfully impact health outcomes for patients.

The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to minimize the likelihood of nonadherence. Despite this, patients might willfully choose to be nonadherent, forget to take their medications, or neglect to pick up their medications. Additionally, in health care systems where patients must pay for their medications, prescription drug costs might be a barrier to adherence.

When nonadherence is suspected, the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care directs pharmacists in MOSAIC to take action. First, the underlying cause of the nonadherence must be determined. For example, if a patient is nonadherent because of an adverse drug reaction, a therapy change may be indicated. If a patient is nonadherent due to apathy toward their health or therapy, the patient may benefit from education about their condition and treatment options; thus, the patient can make shared, informed decisions and feel more actively involved with his or her health. If a patients is nonadherent due to forgetfulness, adherence packaging dispense methods should be considered as an alternative to traditional vials. Depending on the services offered by a given pharmacy, adherence packaging options may include blister packs, pill boxes, or strips prepared by robotic dispensing systems. The use of medication reminders, whether in the form of a smartphone application or a simple alarm clock, should be discussed with the patient. If the patient does not pick up their medications on time, a pharmacist can contact the patient to determine why the medications were not picked up and to assess any nonadherence. In this case, mail order pharmacy services, if available, should be offered to patients as a more convenient option.

The medication regimen optimization component of MOSAIC helps reduce the workload of primary care providers and allows pharmacists to act autonomously based on clinical judgment, within the scope of the CPA. This can prevent delays in care caused by no refills remaining on a prescription. The laboratory monitoring component allows pharmacists to track diseases and take action if necessary, which should have a favorable impact on GPRA measures. Medication optimizations can reduce wasted resources by identifying cost-saving formulary alternatives, potentially inappropriate medications, and suboptimal doses.

Since many Indian Health Service beneficiaries do not have private insurance and therefore do not generate third-party reimbursements for services and care provided by GIMC, keeping patients healthy and out of the hospital is a top priority. As more patients are enrolled in MOSAIC, the program is expected to have a favorable impact on pharmacy workload and workflow as well. Prescriptions are anticipated and filled in advance, which decreases the amount of patients calling and presenting to the pharmacy for same-day refill requests. Scheduling when MOSAIC patients’ medications are to be filled and dispensed creates a predictable workload that allows the pharmacy staff to be managed more efficiently.

Conclusion

Adherence is the responsibility of the patient, but the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care aims to provide pharmacists with a framework to monitor and encourage adherence in their patients. By taking this patient-centered approach, MOSAIC is expected to improve outcomes and decrease hospitalizations for high-risk patients who simply need a little extra help with their medications.

Nonadherence is a significant problem that has a negative impact on both patients and public health. Patients with multiple diseases often have complicated medication regimens, which can be difficult for them to manage. Unfortunately, nonadherence in these high-risk patients can have drastic consequences, including disease progression, hospitalization, and death, resulting in billions of dollars in unnecessary costs nationwide.^1,2 The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care (Figure) is a novel care model developed at the Gallup Indian Medical Center (GIMC) in New Mexico to address these problems by positioning pharmacy as a proactive service. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to improve adherence and patient outcomes and to encourage communication among the patient, pharmacists, prescribers, and other health care team members.

Pharmacists are central to managing patients’ medication therapies and coordinating communication among the health care providers (HCPs).^1,3 Medication therapy management (MTM), a required component of Medicare Part D plans, helps ensure appropriate drug use and reduce the risk of adverse events.³ Since pharmacists receive prescriptions from all of the patient’s HCPs, patients may see pharmacists more often than they see any other HCP. GIMC is currently piloting a new clinic, the Medication Optimization, Synchronization, and Adherence Improvement Clinic (MOSAIC), that was created to implement the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care. MOSAIC aims to provide proactive pharmacy services and continuous MTM to high-risk patients and will enable the effectiveness of this new pharmaceutical care model to be assessed.

Methods

Studies have identified certain populations who are at an increased risk for nonadherence: the elderly, patients with complex or extensive medication regimens, patients with multiple chronic medical conditions, substance misusers, certain ethnicities, patients of lower socioeconomic status, patients with limited literacy, and the homeless.^2,4 Federal regulations require that Medicare Part D plans target beneficiaries who meet specific criteria for MTM programs. Under these rules, plans must target beneficiaries with ≥ 3 chronic diseases and ≥ 8 chronic medications, although plans also may include patients with fewer medications and diseases.³ Although the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care is postulated to be an accurate model for the ideal care of all patients, initial implementation should be targeted toward populations who are likely to benefit the most from intervention. For these reasons, elderly Native American patients who have ≥ 2 chronic diseases and who take ≥ 5 chronic medications were targeted for initial enrollment in MOSAIC at GIMC.

Overview

In MOSAIC, pharmacists act as the hub of the pharmaceutical care wheel. Pharmacists work to ensure optimization of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan—the rim of the wheel. As a part of this optimization process, MOSAIC pharmacists facilitate synchronization of the patient’s prescriptions to a monthly or quarterly target fill date. The patient’s current medication therapy is organized, and pharmacists track which medications are due to be filled instead of depending on the patient to request each prescription refill. This process effectively changes pharmacy from a requested service to a provided service.

Pharmacists also monitor the air in the tire to promote adherence. This is accomplished by providing efficient monthly or quarterly telephone or in-person consultations, which helps the patient better understand his or her comprehensive, integrated care plan. MOSAIC eliminates the possibility of nonadherence due to running out of refills. Specialized packaging, such as pill boxes or blister packs, can also improve adherence for certain patients.

MOSAIC ensures that pharmacists stay connected with the spokes, which represent a patient’s numerous prescribers, and close communication loops. Pharmacists can make prescribers aware of potential gaps or overlaps in treatment and assist them in the optimization and development of the patient’s comprehensive, integrated care plan. Pharmacists also make sure that the patient’s medication profile is current and accurate in the electronic health record (EHR). Any pertinent information discovered during MOSAIC encounters, such as abnormal laboratory results or changes in medications or disease, is documented in an EHR note. The patient’s prescribers are made aware of this information by tagging them as additional signers to the note in the EHR.

Keeping patients—the tires—healthy will ensure smooth operation of the vehicle and have a positive impact on public health. MOSAIC is expected to not only improve individual patient outcomes, but also decrease health care costs for patients and society due to nonadherence, suboptimal regimens, stockpiled home medications, and preventable hospital admissions.

Traditionally, pharmacy has been a requested service: A patient requests each of their prescriptions to be refilled, and the pharmacy fills the prescription. Ideally, pharmacy must become a provided service, with pharmacists keeping track of when a patient’s medications are due to be filled and actively looking for medication therapy optimization opportunities. This is accomplished by synchronizing the patient’s medications to the same monthly or quarterly fill date; screening for any potentially inappropriate medications, including high-risk medications in elderly patients, duplications, and omissions; verifying any medication changes with the patient each fill; and then providing all needed medications to the patient at a scheduled time.

To facilitate this process, custom software was developed for MOSAIC. In addition, a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was drafted that allowed MOSAIC pharmacists to make certain medication therapy optimizations on behalf of the patient’s primary care provider. As part of this CPA, pharmacists also may order and act on certain laboratory tests, which helps to monitor disease progression, ensure safe medication use, and meet Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures. As a novel model of pharmaceutical care, the effects of this approach are not yet known; however, research suggests that increased communication among HCPs and patient-centered approaches to care are beneficial to patient outcomes, adherence, and public health.^1,5

Investigated Outcomes

As patients continue to enroll in MOSAIC, the effectiveness of the clinic will be evaluated. Specifically, quality of life, patient and HCP satisfaction with the program, adherence metrics, hospitalization rates, and all-cause mortality will be assessed for patients enrolled in MOSAIC as well as similar patients who are not enrolled in MOSAIC. Also, pharmacists will log all recommended medication therapy interventions so that the optimization component of MOSAIC may be quantified. GPRA measures and the financial implications of the interventions made by MOSAIC will also be evaluated.

Discussion

There are a number of factors, such as MTM services and interprofessional care teams, that research has shown to independently improve patient outcomes, adherence, or public health. By synthesizing these factors, a completely new approach—the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care—was developed. This model presents a radical departure from traditional, requested-service practices and posits pharmacy as a provided service instead. Although the ideas of MTM and interprofessional care teams are not new, there has never been a practical way to truly integrate community pharmacists into the patient care team or to ensure adequate communication among all of the patient’s HCPs. The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care includes public health as one of its core components and provides a framework for pharmacies to meaningfully impact health outcomes for patients.

The Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care was designed to minimize the likelihood of nonadherence. Despite this, patients might willfully choose to be nonadherent, forget to take their medications, or neglect to pick up their medications. Additionally, in health care systems where patients must pay for their medications, prescription drug costs might be a barrier to adherence.

When nonadherence is suspected, the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care directs pharmacists in MOSAIC to take action. First, the underlying cause of the nonadherence must be determined. For example, if a patient is nonadherent because of an adverse drug reaction, a therapy change may be indicated. If a patient is nonadherent due to apathy toward their health or therapy, the patient may benefit from education about their condition and treatment options; thus, the patient can make shared, informed decisions and feel more actively involved with his or her health. If a patients is nonadherent due to forgetfulness, adherence packaging dispense methods should be considered as an alternative to traditional vials. Depending on the services offered by a given pharmacy, adherence packaging options may include blister packs, pill boxes, or strips prepared by robotic dispensing systems. The use of medication reminders, whether in the form of a smartphone application or a simple alarm clock, should be discussed with the patient. If the patient does not pick up their medications on time, a pharmacist can contact the patient to determine why the medications were not picked up and to assess any nonadherence. In this case, mail order pharmacy services, if available, should be offered to patients as a more convenient option.

The medication regimen optimization component of MOSAIC helps reduce the workload of primary care providers and allows pharmacists to act autonomously based on clinical judgment, within the scope of the CPA. This can prevent delays in care caused by no refills remaining on a prescription. The laboratory monitoring component allows pharmacists to track diseases and take action if necessary, which should have a favorable impact on GPRA measures. Medication optimizations can reduce wasted resources by identifying cost-saving formulary alternatives, potentially inappropriate medications, and suboptimal doses.

Since many Indian Health Service beneficiaries do not have private insurance and therefore do not generate third-party reimbursements for services and care provided by GIMC, keeping patients healthy and out of the hospital is a top priority. As more patients are enrolled in MOSAIC, the program is expected to have a favorable impact on pharmacy workload and workflow as well. Prescriptions are anticipated and filled in advance, which decreases the amount of patients calling and presenting to the pharmacy for same-day refill requests. Scheduling when MOSAIC patients’ medications are to be filled and dispensed creates a predictable workload that allows the pharmacy staff to be managed more efficiently.

Conclusion

Adherence is the responsibility of the patient, but the Wheel Model of Pharmaceutical Care aims to provide pharmacists with a framework to monitor and encourage adherence in their patients. By taking this patient-centered approach, MOSAIC is expected to improve outcomes and decrease hospitalizations for high-risk patients who simply need a little extra help with their medications.