Preexisting statin use may help protect hospitalized patients with COVID-19 against negative outcomes, including death, a large retrospective analysis suggests.

Compared with patients who didn’t take statins, statin users had better health outcomes. For those who used these medications, the researchers saw lower mortality, lower clinical severity, and shorter hospital stays, aligning with previous observational studies, said lead author Ettore Crimi, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and colleagues in their abstract, which was part of the agenda for the Anesthesiology annual meeting.

They attributed these clinical improvements to the pleiotropic – non–cholesterol lowering – effects of statins.

“[These] benefits of statins have been reported since the 1990s,” Dr. Crimi said in an interview. “Statin treatment has been associated with a marked reduction of markers of inflammation, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), ferritin, and white blood cell count, among others.”

He noted that these effects have been studied in an array of conditions, including cancer, autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammatory disease, and in the perioperative setting, and with infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

In those previous studies, “preexisting statin use was protective among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but a large, multicenter cohort study has not been reported in the United States,” Dr. Crimi and his colleagues wrote in their abstract.

To address this knowledge gap, they turned to electronic medical records from 38,875 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from January to September 2020. Almost one-third of the population (n = 11,533) were using statins prior to hospitalization, while the remainder (n = 27,342) were nonusers.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included death from COVID-19, along with a variety of severe complications. While the analysis did account for a range of potentially confounding variables, the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and new therapeutics were not considered. Vaccines were not yet available at the time the data were collected.

Statin users had a 31% lower rate of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.75; P = .001) and a 37% reduced rate of death from COVID-19 (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.69; P = .001).

A litany of other secondary variables also favored statin users, including reduced rates of discharge to hospice (OR, 0.79), ICU admission (OR, 0.69), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDs; OR, 0.72), critical ARDs (OR, 0.57), mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.60), severe sepsis with septic shock (OR, 0.66), and thrombosis (OR, 0.46). Statin users also had, on average, shorter hospital stays and briefer mechanical ventilation.

“Our study showed a strong association between preexisting statin use and reduced mortality and morbidity rates in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” the investigators concluded. “Pleiotropic benefits of statins could be repurposed for COVID-19 illness.”

Prospective studies needed before practice changes

How to best use statins against COVID-19, if at all, remains unclear, Dr. Crimi said, as initiation upon infection has generated mixed results in other studies, possibly because of statin pharmacodynamics. Cholesterol normalization can take about 6 weeks, so other benefits may track a similar timeline.

“The delayed onset of statins’ pleiotropic effects may likely fail to keep pace with the rapidly progressive, devastating COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Crimi said. “Therefore, initiating statins for an acute disease may not be an ideal first-line treatment.”

Stronger data are on the horizon, he added, noting that 19 federally funded prospective trials are underway to better understand the relationship between statins and COVID-19.

Daniel Rader, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the present findings are “not especially notable” because they “mostly confirm previous studies, but in a large U.S. cohort.”

Dr. Rader, who wrote about the potential repurposing of statins for COVID-19 back in the first year of the pandemic (Cell Metab. 2020 Aug 4;32[2]:145-7), agreed with the investigators that recommending changes to clinical practice would be imprudent until randomized controlled data confirm the benefits of initiating statins in patients with active COVID-19.

“More research on the impact of cellular cholesterol metabolism on SARS-CoV-2 infection of cells and generation of inflammation would also be of interest,” he added.

The investigators disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Rader disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Verve, and others.

Preexisting statin use may help protect hospitalized patients with COVID-19 against negative outcomes, including death, a large retrospective analysis suggests.

Compared with patients who didn’t take statins, statin users had better health outcomes. For those who used these medications, the researchers saw lower mortality, lower clinical severity, and shorter hospital stays, aligning with previous observational studies, said lead author Ettore Crimi, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and colleagues in their abstract, which was part of the agenda for the Anesthesiology annual meeting.

They attributed these clinical improvements to the pleiotropic – non–cholesterol lowering – effects of statins.

“[These] benefits of statins have been reported since the 1990s,” Dr. Crimi said in an interview. “Statin treatment has been associated with a marked reduction of markers of inflammation, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), ferritin, and white blood cell count, among others.”

He noted that these effects have been studied in an array of conditions, including cancer, autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammatory disease, and in the perioperative setting, and with infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

In those previous studies, “preexisting statin use was protective among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but a large, multicenter cohort study has not been reported in the United States,” Dr. Crimi and his colleagues wrote in their abstract.

To address this knowledge gap, they turned to electronic medical records from 38,875 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from January to September 2020. Almost one-third of the population (n = 11,533) were using statins prior to hospitalization, while the remainder (n = 27,342) were nonusers.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included death from COVID-19, along with a variety of severe complications. While the analysis did account for a range of potentially confounding variables, the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and new therapeutics were not considered. Vaccines were not yet available at the time the data were collected.

Statin users had a 31% lower rate of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.75; P = .001) and a 37% reduced rate of death from COVID-19 (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.69; P = .001).

A litany of other secondary variables also favored statin users, including reduced rates of discharge to hospice (OR, 0.79), ICU admission (OR, 0.69), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDs; OR, 0.72), critical ARDs (OR, 0.57), mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.60), severe sepsis with septic shock (OR, 0.66), and thrombosis (OR, 0.46). Statin users also had, on average, shorter hospital stays and briefer mechanical ventilation.

“Our study showed a strong association between preexisting statin use and reduced mortality and morbidity rates in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” the investigators concluded. “Pleiotropic benefits of statins could be repurposed for COVID-19 illness.”

Prospective studies needed before practice changes

How to best use statins against COVID-19, if at all, remains unclear, Dr. Crimi said, as initiation upon infection has generated mixed results in other studies, possibly because of statin pharmacodynamics. Cholesterol normalization can take about 6 weeks, so other benefits may track a similar timeline.

“The delayed onset of statins’ pleiotropic effects may likely fail to keep pace with the rapidly progressive, devastating COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Crimi said. “Therefore, initiating statins for an acute disease may not be an ideal first-line treatment.”

Stronger data are on the horizon, he added, noting that 19 federally funded prospective trials are underway to better understand the relationship between statins and COVID-19.

Daniel Rader, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the present findings are “not especially notable” because they “mostly confirm previous studies, but in a large U.S. cohort.”

Dr. Rader, who wrote about the potential repurposing of statins for COVID-19 back in the first year of the pandemic (Cell Metab. 2020 Aug 4;32[2]:145-7), agreed with the investigators that recommending changes to clinical practice would be imprudent until randomized controlled data confirm the benefits of initiating statins in patients with active COVID-19.

“More research on the impact of cellular cholesterol metabolism on SARS-CoV-2 infection of cells and generation of inflammation would also be of interest,” he added.

The investigators disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Rader disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Verve, and others.

Preexisting statin use may help protect hospitalized patients with COVID-19 against negative outcomes, including death, a large retrospective analysis suggests.

Compared with patients who didn’t take statins, statin users had better health outcomes. For those who used these medications, the researchers saw lower mortality, lower clinical severity, and shorter hospital stays, aligning with previous observational studies, said lead author Ettore Crimi, MD, of the University of Central Florida, Orlando, and colleagues in their abstract, which was part of the agenda for the Anesthesiology annual meeting.

They attributed these clinical improvements to the pleiotropic – non–cholesterol lowering – effects of statins.

“[These] benefits of statins have been reported since the 1990s,” Dr. Crimi said in an interview. “Statin treatment has been associated with a marked reduction of markers of inflammation, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), ferritin, and white blood cell count, among others.”

He noted that these effects have been studied in an array of conditions, including cancer, autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammatory disease, and in the perioperative setting, and with infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

In those previous studies, “preexisting statin use was protective among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but a large, multicenter cohort study has not been reported in the United States,” Dr. Crimi and his colleagues wrote in their abstract.

To address this knowledge gap, they turned to electronic medical records from 38,875 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from January to September 2020. Almost one-third of the population (n = 11,533) were using statins prior to hospitalization, while the remainder (n = 27,342) were nonusers.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included death from COVID-19, along with a variety of severe complications. While the analysis did account for a range of potentially confounding variables, the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and new therapeutics were not considered. Vaccines were not yet available at the time the data were collected.

Statin users had a 31% lower rate of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.75; P = .001) and a 37% reduced rate of death from COVID-19 (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.69; P = .001).

A litany of other secondary variables also favored statin users, including reduced rates of discharge to hospice (OR, 0.79), ICU admission (OR, 0.69), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDs; OR, 0.72), critical ARDs (OR, 0.57), mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.60), severe sepsis with septic shock (OR, 0.66), and thrombosis (OR, 0.46). Statin users also had, on average, shorter hospital stays and briefer mechanical ventilation.

“Our study showed a strong association between preexisting statin use and reduced mortality and morbidity rates in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” the investigators concluded. “Pleiotropic benefits of statins could be repurposed for COVID-19 illness.”

Prospective studies needed before practice changes

How to best use statins against COVID-19, if at all, remains unclear, Dr. Crimi said, as initiation upon infection has generated mixed results in other studies, possibly because of statin pharmacodynamics. Cholesterol normalization can take about 6 weeks, so other benefits may track a similar timeline.

“The delayed onset of statins’ pleiotropic effects may likely fail to keep pace with the rapidly progressive, devastating COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Crimi said. “Therefore, initiating statins for an acute disease may not be an ideal first-line treatment.”

Stronger data are on the horizon, he added, noting that 19 federally funded prospective trials are underway to better understand the relationship between statins and COVID-19.

Daniel Rader, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the present findings are “not especially notable” because they “mostly confirm previous studies, but in a large U.S. cohort.”

Dr. Rader, who wrote about the potential repurposing of statins for COVID-19 back in the first year of the pandemic (Cell Metab. 2020 Aug 4;32[2]:145-7), agreed with the investigators that recommending changes to clinical practice would be imprudent until randomized controlled data confirm the benefits of initiating statins in patients with active COVID-19.

“More research on the impact of cellular cholesterol metabolism on SARS-CoV-2 infection of cells and generation of inflammation would also be of interest,” he added.

The investigators disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Rader disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Verve, and others.

Mind and body practices, especially yoga, improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes to a similar extent as medications such as metformin, new research shows.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study that has looked across different modalities of mind-body interventions and the first to show that there is a very consistent effect on A1c regardless of which modality you use,” senior author, Richard Watanabe, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

none needed

Regularity of yoga practice makes the difference

A total of 28 studies of patients with type 2 diabetes published between 1993 and 2022 were included in the meta-analysis. In all studies, patients who were taking insulin or had any medical complications of diabetes were excluded.

A significant mean reduction in A1c of 0.84% was observed across the board for all types of mindfulness interventions (P < .0001).

For mindfulness-based stress reduction, A1c was reduced by 0.48% (P = 0.03), while the practice of qigong – a coordinated body-posture movement – was associated with a 0.66% drop in A1c (P = .01). For meditation, A1c dropped by 0.50% (P = .64).

However, the largest drop in A1c was seen with yoga, where it fell by 1.00% (P < .0001) – about the same degree of glycemic control achieved with metformin, the authors point out.  

Indeed, for every additional day of yoga practiced per week, mean A1c differed by –0.22% (P = .46) between those who engaged in mind-body interventions and those who did not.

There was also a reduction in fasting blood glucose (FBG) with yoga and other practices. “The mean change in FBG was consistent with the mean change in A1c at –22.81 mg/dL (P < .0001),” the authors continue.

The researchers found that the duration of yoga didn’t matter but the frequency did, so it’s the regularity “with which you do yoga that makes the difference,” Dr. Watanabe said.

Dr. Watanabe and his coauthors also point out that because most patients were actively receiving metformin before and throughout the studies, the observed effect of mind and body practices on A1c represents an additional reduction beyond that of medication.

“This raises the question [as to] whether mind and body practices could be useful when initiated early in the course of diabetes therapy along with conventional lifestyle treatments,” they suggest.

While more research is needed to study this specifically, “our results suggest that these mind-body practices might be a good preventative measure,” Dr. Watanabe noted. Mind-body practices may also effectively prevent type 2 diabetes in at-risk patients, the authors propose.
 

Does meditation help alleviate psychological distress?

How mind-body practices work to improve glycemic control isn’t clear, but one possible theory is that patients experience a decrease in psychological distress when they undertake such practices and in so doing, may be more compliant with their prescribed treatment regimen.

A few of the studies analyzed showed that mind-body work resulted in a significant decrease in serum cortisol, the stress hormone that could plausibly mediate the benefit of mind and body practices through reduced inflammation.

In addition, “people with diabetes live with what we call ‘diabetes distress,’ ” Dr. Watanabe explained.

“Management of blood glucose is very stressful. You have to watch what you eat, you have to measure your glucose, and for the average person, that gets stressful. And that stress just contributes to the difficulty of controlling blood glucose,” he noted.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mind and body practices, especially yoga, improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes to a similar extent as medications such as metformin, new research shows.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study that has looked across different modalities of mind-body interventions and the first to show that there is a very consistent effect on A1c regardless of which modality you use,” senior author, Richard Watanabe, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

none needed

Regularity of yoga practice makes the difference

A total of 28 studies of patients with type 2 diabetes published between 1993 and 2022 were included in the meta-analysis. In all studies, patients who were taking insulin or had any medical complications of diabetes were excluded.

A significant mean reduction in A1c of 0.84% was observed across the board for all types of mindfulness interventions (P < .0001).

For mindfulness-based stress reduction, A1c was reduced by 0.48% (P = 0.03), while the practice of qigong – a coordinated body-posture movement – was associated with a 0.66% drop in A1c (P = .01). For meditation, A1c dropped by 0.50% (P = .64).

However, the largest drop in A1c was seen with yoga, where it fell by 1.00% (P < .0001) – about the same degree of glycemic control achieved with metformin, the authors point out.  

Indeed, for every additional day of yoga practiced per week, mean A1c differed by –0.22% (P = .46) between those who engaged in mind-body interventions and those who did not.

There was also a reduction in fasting blood glucose (FBG) with yoga and other practices. “The mean change in FBG was consistent with the mean change in A1c at –22.81 mg/dL (P < .0001),” the authors continue.

The researchers found that the duration of yoga didn’t matter but the frequency did, so it’s the regularity “with which you do yoga that makes the difference,” Dr. Watanabe said.

Dr. Watanabe and his coauthors also point out that because most patients were actively receiving metformin before and throughout the studies, the observed effect of mind and body practices on A1c represents an additional reduction beyond that of medication.

“This raises the question [as to] whether mind and body practices could be useful when initiated early in the course of diabetes therapy along with conventional lifestyle treatments,” they suggest.

While more research is needed to study this specifically, “our results suggest that these mind-body practices might be a good preventative measure,” Dr. Watanabe noted. Mind-body practices may also effectively prevent type 2 diabetes in at-risk patients, the authors propose.
 

Does meditation help alleviate psychological distress?

How mind-body practices work to improve glycemic control isn’t clear, but one possible theory is that patients experience a decrease in psychological distress when they undertake such practices and in so doing, may be more compliant with their prescribed treatment regimen.

A few of the studies analyzed showed that mind-body work resulted in a significant decrease in serum cortisol, the stress hormone that could plausibly mediate the benefit of mind and body practices through reduced inflammation.

In addition, “people with diabetes live with what we call ‘diabetes distress,’ ” Dr. Watanabe explained.

“Management of blood glucose is very stressful. You have to watch what you eat, you have to measure your glucose, and for the average person, that gets stressful. And that stress just contributes to the difficulty of controlling blood glucose,” he noted.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mind and body practices, especially yoga, improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes to a similar extent as medications such as metformin, new research shows.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study that has looked across different modalities of mind-body interventions and the first to show that there is a very consistent effect on A1c regardless of which modality you use,” senior author, Richard Watanabe, PhD, professor of biostatistics, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

none needed

Regularity of yoga practice makes the difference

A total of 28 studies of patients with type 2 diabetes published between 1993 and 2022 were included in the meta-analysis. In all studies, patients who were taking insulin or had any medical complications of diabetes were excluded.

A significant mean reduction in A1c of 0.84% was observed across the board for all types of mindfulness interventions (P < .0001).

For mindfulness-based stress reduction, A1c was reduced by 0.48% (P = 0.03), while the practice of qigong – a coordinated body-posture movement – was associated with a 0.66% drop in A1c (P = .01). For meditation, A1c dropped by 0.50% (P = .64).

However, the largest drop in A1c was seen with yoga, where it fell by 1.00% (P < .0001) – about the same degree of glycemic control achieved with metformin, the authors point out.  

Indeed, for every additional day of yoga practiced per week, mean A1c differed by –0.22% (P = .46) between those who engaged in mind-body interventions and those who did not.

There was also a reduction in fasting blood glucose (FBG) with yoga and other practices. “The mean change in FBG was consistent with the mean change in A1c at –22.81 mg/dL (P < .0001),” the authors continue.

The researchers found that the duration of yoga didn’t matter but the frequency did, so it’s the regularity “with which you do yoga that makes the difference,” Dr. Watanabe said.

Dr. Watanabe and his coauthors also point out that because most patients were actively receiving metformin before and throughout the studies, the observed effect of mind and body practices on A1c represents an additional reduction beyond that of medication.

“This raises the question [as to] whether mind and body practices could be useful when initiated early in the course of diabetes therapy along with conventional lifestyle treatments,” they suggest.

While more research is needed to study this specifically, “our results suggest that these mind-body practices might be a good preventative measure,” Dr. Watanabe noted. Mind-body practices may also effectively prevent type 2 diabetes in at-risk patients, the authors propose.
 

Does meditation help alleviate psychological distress?

How mind-body practices work to improve glycemic control isn’t clear, but one possible theory is that patients experience a decrease in psychological distress when they undertake such practices and in so doing, may be more compliant with their prescribed treatment regimen.

A few of the studies analyzed showed that mind-body work resulted in a significant decrease in serum cortisol, the stress hormone that could plausibly mediate the benefit of mind and body practices through reduced inflammation.

In addition, “people with diabetes live with what we call ‘diabetes distress,’ ” Dr. Watanabe explained.

“Management of blood glucose is very stressful. You have to watch what you eat, you have to measure your glucose, and for the average person, that gets stressful. And that stress just contributes to the difficulty of controlling blood glucose,” he noted.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

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

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

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

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

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

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Ridinilazole, a novel, highly specific antibiotic, was safe and showed a sustained clinical response in patients with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), according to phase 3 trial results presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDI is the top cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and one of the most common health care–associated infections in the United States. About 200,000 people in the United States are infected with C. difficile every year in the hospital or clinical care setting.

Most infections are currently treated with vancomycin. Although vancomycin has been shown to be more than 80% effective, it has been linked with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 30% and interferes with the protective role of the gut microbiome against infection. The current study compared ridinilazole with vancomycin.

Results of the global, double-blinded, randomized trial were presented by Pablo C. Okhuysen, MD, professor of infectious disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Participants with CDI received a 10-day course of ridinilazole 200 mg twice a day plus placebo or vancomycin 125 mg four times a day. The primary endpoint was sustained clinical response, defined as a clinical response with no recurrent CDI through 30 days after the end of treatment. Recurrent CDI was defined as a new episode of diarrhea with confirmed positive free toxin test requiring additional therapy.

Of the 759 patients enrolled, 745 were included in the modified intention-to-treat  population (ridinilazole, n = 370; vancomycin, n = 375). Ridinilazole achieved a numerically higher rate of sustained clinical response than vancomycin (73.0% vs. 70.7%; P = .467), although the difference was not significant. Ridinilazole also resulted in a significant reduction in recurrence rate (8.1% vs. 17.3%; P < .001).

Ridinilazole’s effect was most notable in a subgroup of patients who were not receiving other antibiotics at time of enrollment – about 70% of participants. In that subgroup, the recurrence rate was 6.7% with ridinilazole versus 16.5% with vancomycin (P < .001), Dr. Okhuysen reported.

“That resulted in a relative risk reduction of 60%,” Dr. Okhuysen told this news organization.

Dr. Okhuysen pointed out that there are currently very few treatment options for CDI other than vancomycin.

“We need new agents to treat C. difficile,” he said, “particularly for those at risk of recurrence. In our study, we found that those exposed to vancomycin had very dramatic shifts in their microbiome.”

Vancomycin depletes the gut microbiome, which decreases the conversion of primary acids to secondary bile acids, the researchers noted.

“A dysbiotic microbiome is fertile ground for C. difficile to grow,” Dr. Okhuysen said. Ridinilazole does not disrupt the microbiome, he added.

Ridinilazole was well-tolerated in the study. The proportion of patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse effect was 36.4% versus 35.5%, respectively, in the ridinilazole and vancomycin groups. And the proportion who stopped treatment because of treatment-related side effects was 0.8% versus 2.9%.

Mary Hayden, MD, pathology director in the division of infectious diseases at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said the results are encouraging as “alternative agents or strategies to prevent recurrence are important to reduce CDI morbidity.”

Its double-blind, randomized, multicenter design strengthens the findings, she explained, adding that “the secondary outcomes of higher concentrations of secondary bile acids and microbiota diversity and composition lend biological plausibility.”

Ridinilazole’s narrow spectrum of activity “should result in less disruption of the colonic microbiota, which has theoretical benefit for both reducing CDI recurrence and for reducing risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms,” Dr. Hayden said.

Dr. Okhuysen shared that the team is in talks with the Food and Drug Administration and is preparing a manuscript for publication.

The study was supported by Summit Pharmaceuticals and funded by the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority. Dr. Okhuysen has reported receiving research support from and/or consulting for Summit, Merck, Deinove, Melinta, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Some of the coauthors have financial relationships with or received research support from Summit. Dr. Hayden has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Each year, the AGA Research Foundation provides research funding to transform the lives of talented investigators.

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA – through the AGA Research Foundation – has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program. In the past year, the AGA Research Foundation provided $2.5 million in research funding to 61 highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

The AGA Research Foundation sincerely thanks all of its donors – without their contributions, this work wouldn’t be possible.

You can help spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow. Donate your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Each year, the AGA Research Foundation provides research funding to transform the lives of talented investigators.

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA – through the AGA Research Foundation – has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program. In the past year, the AGA Research Foundation provided $2.5 million in research funding to 61 highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

The AGA Research Foundation sincerely thanks all of its donors – without their contributions, this work wouldn’t be possible.

You can help spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow. Donate your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Each year, the AGA Research Foundation provides research funding to transform the lives of talented investigators.

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA – through the AGA Research Foundation – has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program. In the past year, the AGA Research Foundation provided $2.5 million in research funding to 61 highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

The AGA Research Foundation sincerely thanks all of its donors – without their contributions, this work wouldn’t be possible.

You can help spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow. Donate your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

The Intersociety Group on Diversity, in partnership with researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, released results of the first study of its kind to explore perspectives on workforce diversity and health equity among practicing GI and hepatology professionals.

The report — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in GI and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand — was published jointly in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology. An executive summary is also available in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition.
 

Key findings:

1. Many are complacent with current levels of diversity. Despite the well-recognized under-representation of certain racial and ethnic groups in GI/hepatology, a small proportion of survey participants (one-third or fewer) felt that racial/ethnic representation was insufficient in the educational/training pipeline, among practicing professionals, or in GI/hepatology leadership. There was a clear discrepancy in satisfaction with workplace diversity among GI and hepatology physicians by race and ethnicity: Overall, 63% of Black physicians were very or somewhat unsatisfied with workplace diversity, whereas 78% of White physicians were very or somewhat satisfied.

2. Interventions are needed. Among those who recommended interventions to enhance racial and gender diversity in the profession, the most common suggestions were to increase the following:

• Mentorship opportunities for resident and medical students who are women or from racial and ethnic populations underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population. These groups have traditionally included Latino (i.e., Latino/a/x), Black/African American, Native American individuals (namely, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islanders, and mainland Puerto Ricans.
• Representation of underrepresented in medicine GI/hepatology professionals in academic and professional society leadership.

More than 1,200 individuals participated in this nationwide, cross-sectional, 33-question survey. The survey was developed by University of California, Los Angeles investigators Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil; Harman Rahal, MD; James H. Tabibian, MD, PhD; and Liu Yang, PhD. The IGD, co-chaired at the time by Darrell M. Gray, II, MD, MPH, and Rachel Issaka, MD, MAS, provided input and facilitated survey distribution.


 

The Intersociety Group on Diversity, in partnership with researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, released results of the first study of its kind to explore perspectives on workforce diversity and health equity among practicing GI and hepatology professionals.

The report — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in GI and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand — was published jointly in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology. An executive summary is also available in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition.
 

Key findings:

1. Many are complacent with current levels of diversity. Despite the well-recognized under-representation of certain racial and ethnic groups in GI/hepatology, a small proportion of survey participants (one-third or fewer) felt that racial/ethnic representation was insufficient in the educational/training pipeline, among practicing professionals, or in GI/hepatology leadership. There was a clear discrepancy in satisfaction with workplace diversity among GI and hepatology physicians by race and ethnicity: Overall, 63% of Black physicians were very or somewhat unsatisfied with workplace diversity, whereas 78% of White physicians were very or somewhat satisfied.

2. Interventions are needed. Among those who recommended interventions to enhance racial and gender diversity in the profession, the most common suggestions were to increase the following:

• Mentorship opportunities for resident and medical students who are women or from racial and ethnic populations underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population. These groups have traditionally included Latino (i.e., Latino/a/x), Black/African American, Native American individuals (namely, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islanders, and mainland Puerto Ricans.
• Representation of underrepresented in medicine GI/hepatology professionals in academic and professional society leadership.

More than 1,200 individuals participated in this nationwide, cross-sectional, 33-question survey. The survey was developed by University of California, Los Angeles investigators Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil; Harman Rahal, MD; James H. Tabibian, MD, PhD; and Liu Yang, PhD. The IGD, co-chaired at the time by Darrell M. Gray, II, MD, MPH, and Rachel Issaka, MD, MAS, provided input and facilitated survey distribution.


 

The Intersociety Group on Diversity, in partnership with researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, released results of the first study of its kind to explore perspectives on workforce diversity and health equity among practicing GI and hepatology professionals.

The report — Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in GI and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand — was published jointly in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology. An executive summary is also available in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition.
 

Key findings:

1. Many are complacent with current levels of diversity. Despite the well-recognized under-representation of certain racial and ethnic groups in GI/hepatology, a small proportion of survey participants (one-third or fewer) felt that racial/ethnic representation was insufficient in the educational/training pipeline, among practicing professionals, or in GI/hepatology leadership. There was a clear discrepancy in satisfaction with workplace diversity among GI and hepatology physicians by race and ethnicity: Overall, 63% of Black physicians were very or somewhat unsatisfied with workplace diversity, whereas 78% of White physicians were very or somewhat satisfied.

2. Interventions are needed. Among those who recommended interventions to enhance racial and gender diversity in the profession, the most common suggestions were to increase the following:

• Mentorship opportunities for resident and medical students who are women or from racial and ethnic populations underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population. These groups have traditionally included Latino (i.e., Latino/a/x), Black/African American, Native American individuals (namely, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islanders, and mainland Puerto Ricans.
• Representation of underrepresented in medicine GI/hepatology professionals in academic and professional society leadership.

More than 1,200 individuals participated in this nationwide, cross-sectional, 33-question survey. The survey was developed by University of California, Los Angeles investigators Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil; Harman Rahal, MD; James H. Tabibian, MD, PhD; and Liu Yang, PhD. The IGD, co-chaired at the time by Darrell M. Gray, II, MD, MPH, and Rachel Issaka, MD, MAS, provided input and facilitated survey distribution.


 

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

There has been significant progress in recent years in the treatment of head and neck cancer, and there are useful evidence-based guidelines to inform treatment choices. But less guidance is available when it comes to follow-up and surveillance of patients who have gone into remission.

Existing guidelines for advanced head and neck cancer follow-up are quite broad, with recommended follow-ups ranging from 11 to 27 visits in the 5 years following treatment and no consideration of subtypes.

“Once patients complete treatment for head and neck cancer in particular, they move into survivorship and surveillance phases, and then we are sort of just following patients based on expert opinion,” said Daniel Clayburgh, MD, PhD.

A new study, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, used a novel approach to group head and neck cancer subtypes and calculate optimal follow-up schedules for each.

“They found that in the low-risk types of cancers like HPV-related oropharynx cancers, you really don’t need to see patients all that often because they tend to do quite well, versus the patients that don’t do very well in the long run, such as hypopharyngeal cancers. Their model predicts that you need to see them much, much more often. When you compare that to our guidelines, it says that we’re probably seeing some patients too often, and then there are other patients who we may not be seeing often enough,” said Dr. Clayburgh, who was asked to comment on the study. He is an associate professor of otolaryngology head and neck surgery at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and chief of surgery at the Portland VA Healthcare System.

“I thought it was a clever approach to investigate this other aspect of cancer care that often is a little bit overlooked,” said Dr. Clayburgh. who coauthored an invited commentary published in conjunction with the study.

He said the study results are intriguing, but not quite ready for general clinical practice. The study did not include oral cavity cancers, which are a major subtype, and the results need to be validated in larger patient populations. He also pointed out that recurrence is only one reason to see patients after the treatment phase. “There are long term treatment effects. There are various mental health issues and other health issues that they can have aside from just cancer. So it can be helpful to see patients more often than just purely as dictated on how often they’re going to have a cancer recurrence. I don’t think we’re quite there to exactly what is the right number of visits or how often they need to come in, but I think (this paper is) an important step toward that, and it definitely provides fodder for modification of current guidelines,” Dr. Clayburgh said.
 

The study details

The researchers estimated event-free survival, defined as the time from end of treatment to any event, using a piecewise exponential model. Optimal follow-up timepoint was defined through the occurrence of a 5% event rate. The study included 673 patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer, with a median age of 58 years. A total of 82.5% were men. The researchers did not report race or ethnicity. Over a median follow-up of 57.8 months, frequency of events was 18.9% among 227 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 14.8% among 237 patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV+ OPC), 36.2% among 47 patients with HPV– OPC, 44.6% among 65 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC), and 30.9% among 97 patients with laryngeal cancer (LC).

The researchers divided follow-up into a period of response evaluation and close follow-up, which included the first 6 months after end of treatment, and three phases: 6.0 to 16.5 months (first phase); 16.5 to 25.0 months (second phase); and 25.0 to 99.0 months (third phase). Open follow-up continues after the third phase.

The researchers identified surveillance intervals for each phase for the five patient groups: NPC, HPV+ OPC, HPV– OPC, HPC, and LC. They identified substantially different follow-up intervals for each. The longest intervals were recommended for HPV+ OPC and NPC patients, and the shortest for HPC. Overall, there was a threefold difference in the number of follow-ups recommended among HNC groups.

“Given the limited health care resources and the rising number of patients with head and neck cancer, patient-tailored and evidence-based assessment schedules will benefit both patients and health systems. Further investigation for consensus guidelines is needed, and we hope that the findings of this study will aid in their establishment in the near future,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its reliance on retrospective data, and must be validated in other patient populations before it is suitable for clinical practice.

Dr. Clayburgh has no relevant financial disclosures.

An optimistic new review offers guidance about treating mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in the new era of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy and medication choices informed by risk stratification.

Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.

“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.

MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.

Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).

Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”

Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.

“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”

But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”

These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.

What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”

The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”

Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”

Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”

Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”

What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”

Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”

For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”

“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”

What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”

Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.

An optimistic new review offers guidance about treating mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in the new era of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy and medication choices informed by risk stratification.

Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.

“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.

MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.

Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).

Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”

Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.

“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”

But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”

These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.

What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”

The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”

Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”

Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”

Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”

What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”

Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”

For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”

“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”

What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”

Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.

An optimistic new review offers guidance about treating mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in the new era of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy and medication choices informed by risk stratification.

Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.

“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.

MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.

Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).

Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”

Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.

“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”

But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”

These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.

What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”

The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”

Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”

Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”

Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”

What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”

Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”

For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”

“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”

What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”

Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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