User login
Anti-infective update addresses SSSI choices
ORLANDO – What’s new in infectious disease therapeutics for dermatologists? He ran through an array of updates at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
While naturally occurring smallpox was globally eradicated in 1980, small research stores are held in the United States and Russia, and effective antivirals are part of a strategy to combat bioweapons. Tecovirimat (TPOXX) is an antiviral that inhibits a major envelope protein that poxviruses need to produce extracellular virus. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-2018, it is currently the only antiviral for treating variola virus infection approved in the United States, noted Dr. Finch of the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He added that 2 million doses are currently held in the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.
Another anti-infective agent that won’t be used by those practicing in the United States, but which promises to alleviate a significant source of suffering in the developing world, is moxidectin. The anthelmintic had previously been approved for veterinary uses, but in June 2018, the FDA approved moxidectin to treat onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness. The drug defeats the parasitic worm by binding to glutamate-gated chloride ion channels; it is licensed by the nonprofit Medicines Development for Global Health.
Another antiparasitic drug, benznidazole, was approved to treat children aged 2-12 years with Chagas disease in 2017, Dr. Finch said.
Also in 2017, a topical quinolone, ozenoxacin (Xepi) was approved to treat impetigo in adults and children aged at least 2 months. Formulated as a 1% cream, ozenoxacin is applied twice daily for 5 days. In clinical trials, ozenoxacin was shown to be noninferior to retapamulin, he said.
A new topical choice is important as mupirocin resistance climbs, Dr. Finch added. A recent Greek study showed that 20% (437) of 2,137 staph infections studied were mupirocin resistant. Of the 20%, all but one were skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), with 88% of these being impetigo.
In the United States, mupirocin resistance has been seen in one in three outpatients in a Florida study and in 31% of patients in a New York City sample. Other studies have shown mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates with resistance in the 10%-15% range among children with SSSIs, Dr. Finch said.
Two other new antibiotics to fight SSSIs can each be administered orally or intravenously. One, omadacycline (Nuzyra), is a novel tetracycline that maintains efficacy against bacteria that express tetracycline resistance through efflux and ribosomal protection. Approved in late 2018 for acute bacterial SSSIs, omadacycline treats not just methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant S. aureus, but also Streptococcus species and gram-negative rods such as Enterobacter and Klebsiella pneumoniae, Dr. Finch noted.
Another new fluorinated quinolone, approved in 2017, delafloxacin (Baxdela) has broad spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria.
Dr. Finch reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – What’s new in infectious disease therapeutics for dermatologists? He ran through an array of updates at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
While naturally occurring smallpox was globally eradicated in 1980, small research stores are held in the United States and Russia, and effective antivirals are part of a strategy to combat bioweapons. Tecovirimat (TPOXX) is an antiviral that inhibits a major envelope protein that poxviruses need to produce extracellular virus. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-2018, it is currently the only antiviral for treating variola virus infection approved in the United States, noted Dr. Finch of the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He added that 2 million doses are currently held in the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.
Another anti-infective agent that won’t be used by those practicing in the United States, but which promises to alleviate a significant source of suffering in the developing world, is moxidectin. The anthelmintic had previously been approved for veterinary uses, but in June 2018, the FDA approved moxidectin to treat onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness. The drug defeats the parasitic worm by binding to glutamate-gated chloride ion channels; it is licensed by the nonprofit Medicines Development for Global Health.
Another antiparasitic drug, benznidazole, was approved to treat children aged 2-12 years with Chagas disease in 2017, Dr. Finch said.
Also in 2017, a topical quinolone, ozenoxacin (Xepi) was approved to treat impetigo in adults and children aged at least 2 months. Formulated as a 1% cream, ozenoxacin is applied twice daily for 5 days. In clinical trials, ozenoxacin was shown to be noninferior to retapamulin, he said.
A new topical choice is important as mupirocin resistance climbs, Dr. Finch added. A recent Greek study showed that 20% (437) of 2,137 staph infections studied were mupirocin resistant. Of the 20%, all but one were skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), with 88% of these being impetigo.
In the United States, mupirocin resistance has been seen in one in three outpatients in a Florida study and in 31% of patients in a New York City sample. Other studies have shown mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates with resistance in the 10%-15% range among children with SSSIs, Dr. Finch said.
Two other new antibiotics to fight SSSIs can each be administered orally or intravenously. One, omadacycline (Nuzyra), is a novel tetracycline that maintains efficacy against bacteria that express tetracycline resistance through efflux and ribosomal protection. Approved in late 2018 for acute bacterial SSSIs, omadacycline treats not just methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant S. aureus, but also Streptococcus species and gram-negative rods such as Enterobacter and Klebsiella pneumoniae, Dr. Finch noted.
Another new fluorinated quinolone, approved in 2017, delafloxacin (Baxdela) has broad spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria.
Dr. Finch reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – What’s new in infectious disease therapeutics for dermatologists? He ran through an array of updates at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference.
While naturally occurring smallpox was globally eradicated in 1980, small research stores are held in the United States and Russia, and effective antivirals are part of a strategy to combat bioweapons. Tecovirimat (TPOXX) is an antiviral that inhibits a major envelope protein that poxviruses need to produce extracellular virus. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in mid-2018, it is currently the only antiviral for treating variola virus infection approved in the United States, noted Dr. Finch of the University of Connecticut, Farmington. He added that 2 million doses are currently held in the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile.
Another anti-infective agent that won’t be used by those practicing in the United States, but which promises to alleviate a significant source of suffering in the developing world, is moxidectin. The anthelmintic had previously been approved for veterinary uses, but in June 2018, the FDA approved moxidectin to treat onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness. The drug defeats the parasitic worm by binding to glutamate-gated chloride ion channels; it is licensed by the nonprofit Medicines Development for Global Health.
Another antiparasitic drug, benznidazole, was approved to treat children aged 2-12 years with Chagas disease in 2017, Dr. Finch said.
Also in 2017, a topical quinolone, ozenoxacin (Xepi) was approved to treat impetigo in adults and children aged at least 2 months. Formulated as a 1% cream, ozenoxacin is applied twice daily for 5 days. In clinical trials, ozenoxacin was shown to be noninferior to retapamulin, he said.
A new topical choice is important as mupirocin resistance climbs, Dr. Finch added. A recent Greek study showed that 20% (437) of 2,137 staph infections studied were mupirocin resistant. Of the 20%, all but one were skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs), with 88% of these being impetigo.
In the United States, mupirocin resistance has been seen in one in three outpatients in a Florida study and in 31% of patients in a New York City sample. Other studies have shown mupirocin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus isolates with resistance in the 10%-15% range among children with SSSIs, Dr. Finch said.
Two other new antibiotics to fight SSSIs can each be administered orally or intravenously. One, omadacycline (Nuzyra), is a novel tetracycline that maintains efficacy against bacteria that express tetracycline resistance through efflux and ribosomal protection. Approved in late 2018 for acute bacterial SSSIs, omadacycline treats not just methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant S. aureus, but also Streptococcus species and gram-negative rods such as Enterobacter and Klebsiella pneumoniae, Dr. Finch noted.
Another new fluorinated quinolone, approved in 2017, delafloxacin (Baxdela) has broad spectrum activity against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria.
Dr. Finch reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ODAC 2019
Fezolinetant looks good for hot flashes in phase 2b trial
NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.
The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.
“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”
The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.
A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.
The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.
A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.
Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.
Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.
Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”
Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.
NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.
The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.
“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”
The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.
A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.
The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.
A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.
Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.
Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.
Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”
Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.
NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.
The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.
“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”
The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.
A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.
The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.
A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.
Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.
Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.
Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”
Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.
Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.
REPORTING FROM ENDO 2019
Hormones taken by transgender female teens affect fat levels, muscle mass
NEW ORLEANS – Transgender adolescents who take hormones and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs have body composition measures that vary between those seen in control females and males, according to results of a pilot study presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“Between 0.7% and 1.6% of adolescents in the United States identify as transgender,” Natalie Nokoff, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz, so there will be a large population of teens who may be taking gender-affirming medications over the course of their lives. At the transgender care clinic at the university, the population of these patients has recently climbed to nearly 1,000 patients.
“There have been a few studies that have come out about the health of transgender female adults” – individuals born with a male sex but a female gender identity – for whom standard of care includes blocking puberty with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog to prevent development of male secondary sex characteristics at puberty, said Dr. Nokoff. Estradiol is used later, as well.
The impact of these regimens on overall health was examined in a cross-sectional pilot study of 14 adolescent transgender females, average age 16 years. The patients had been on estradiol for an average of about a year. Control groups were adolescent males and females who were matched by age and body mass index.
“Really, my main question of interest as a pediatric endocrinologist is what is the impact of not only hormones on short- and long-term heart health, and diabetes risk, and long-term health, but also, what [is] the impact of the puberty blockers, or GnRH analogs, with subsequent hormones on health as well,” said Dr. Nokoff. “That’s really the understudied area – what people don’t understand.
“We found that there were several differences in terms of markers of metabolic health between transgender females on estradiol” and the controls, Dr. Nokoff said. “Most notably ... they had a higher (level of) body fat than males, and lower (level) than females” in the control group.
The difference between transgender females and control females and control males for percent body fat was statistically significant (P = .03 and .003, respectively). Differences in lean body mass were also significant when comparing the transgender females and the control males and females (P = .001 and .001, respectively).
“In terms of insulin sensitivity, our other outcome of interest, there was no difference in insulin sensitivity between transgender females and control females, but they were more insulin resistant – or less insulin sensitive – than control males.” This latter difference was statistically significant (P = .01).
Dr. Nokoff reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Transgender adolescents who take hormones and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs have body composition measures that vary between those seen in control females and males, according to results of a pilot study presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“Between 0.7% and 1.6% of adolescents in the United States identify as transgender,” Natalie Nokoff, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz, so there will be a large population of teens who may be taking gender-affirming medications over the course of their lives. At the transgender care clinic at the university, the population of these patients has recently climbed to nearly 1,000 patients.
“There have been a few studies that have come out about the health of transgender female adults” – individuals born with a male sex but a female gender identity – for whom standard of care includes blocking puberty with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog to prevent development of male secondary sex characteristics at puberty, said Dr. Nokoff. Estradiol is used later, as well.
The impact of these regimens on overall health was examined in a cross-sectional pilot study of 14 adolescent transgender females, average age 16 years. The patients had been on estradiol for an average of about a year. Control groups were adolescent males and females who were matched by age and body mass index.
“Really, my main question of interest as a pediatric endocrinologist is what is the impact of not only hormones on short- and long-term heart health, and diabetes risk, and long-term health, but also, what [is] the impact of the puberty blockers, or GnRH analogs, with subsequent hormones on health as well,” said Dr. Nokoff. “That’s really the understudied area – what people don’t understand.
“We found that there were several differences in terms of markers of metabolic health between transgender females on estradiol” and the controls, Dr. Nokoff said. “Most notably ... they had a higher (level of) body fat than males, and lower (level) than females” in the control group.
The difference between transgender females and control females and control males for percent body fat was statistically significant (P = .03 and .003, respectively). Differences in lean body mass were also significant when comparing the transgender females and the control males and females (P = .001 and .001, respectively).
“In terms of insulin sensitivity, our other outcome of interest, there was no difference in insulin sensitivity between transgender females and control females, but they were more insulin resistant – or less insulin sensitive – than control males.” This latter difference was statistically significant (P = .01).
Dr. Nokoff reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Transgender adolescents who take hormones and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs have body composition measures that vary between those seen in control females and males, according to results of a pilot study presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
“Between 0.7% and 1.6% of adolescents in the United States identify as transgender,” Natalie Nokoff, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz, so there will be a large population of teens who may be taking gender-affirming medications over the course of their lives. At the transgender care clinic at the university, the population of these patients has recently climbed to nearly 1,000 patients.
“There have been a few studies that have come out about the health of transgender female adults” – individuals born with a male sex but a female gender identity – for whom standard of care includes blocking puberty with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog to prevent development of male secondary sex characteristics at puberty, said Dr. Nokoff. Estradiol is used later, as well.
The impact of these regimens on overall health was examined in a cross-sectional pilot study of 14 adolescent transgender females, average age 16 years. The patients had been on estradiol for an average of about a year. Control groups were adolescent males and females who were matched by age and body mass index.
“Really, my main question of interest as a pediatric endocrinologist is what is the impact of not only hormones on short- and long-term heart health, and diabetes risk, and long-term health, but also, what [is] the impact of the puberty blockers, or GnRH analogs, with subsequent hormones on health as well,” said Dr. Nokoff. “That’s really the understudied area – what people don’t understand.
“We found that there were several differences in terms of markers of metabolic health between transgender females on estradiol” and the controls, Dr. Nokoff said. “Most notably ... they had a higher (level of) body fat than males, and lower (level) than females” in the control group.
The difference between transgender females and control females and control males for percent body fat was statistically significant (P = .03 and .003, respectively). Differences in lean body mass were also significant when comparing the transgender females and the control males and females (P = .001 and .001, respectively).
“In terms of insulin sensitivity, our other outcome of interest, there was no difference in insulin sensitivity between transgender females and control females, but they were more insulin resistant – or less insulin sensitive – than control males.” This latter difference was statistically significant (P = .01).
Dr. Nokoff reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM ENDO 2019
FDA examines changing donation policies for men who have sex with men
The
At a meeting of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee, the agency shared the content of the 5-item questionnaire and reviewed the proposed study design with committee members, who were asked to comment – but not vote – on the best path forward for MSM donation policies.
The FDA is “committed to ongoing evaluation of the MSM deferral policy” and remains open to adjusting the policy based on the best available scientific evidence, said Barbee Whitaker, PhD, a lead scientist in the agency’s Office of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Disease
After recruiting 2,000 men who have had sex with men at least once during the past 3 months, the study will aim to identify individuals who have very recently become HIV infected, in order to assess the discriminant function of the set of behavioral questions that are proposed in the questionnaire.
The crux of the problem currently, noted Dr. Whitaker, is identifying those individuals who are very recently infected with HIV. Nucleic acid testing has tightened the window of undetectability considerably, but the current 12-month deferral window after men have had sexual contact with other men is designed to ensure safety of the blood supply.
Social justice concerns have been raised about the blanket deferral, said Dr. Whitaker; the behavioral questions in the pilot study will ask about the number of different sexual partners men have had within the past 1, 3, and 12 months and ask about the type of sexual contact (oral sex, or anal penetrative or receptive intercourse). The questionnaire also asks about sex with a partner known to be HIV positive, condom use, and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
The FDA will ask for proposals to conduct the study with an eye to having sites in such cities as Washington, Atlanta, and Miami, which have high incidences of HIV, to improve chances of early detection.
The behavioral questionnaire is not seen as an immediate replacement for the 12-month deferral policy, the FDA made clear in its briefing documents and in discussion with the committee. Instead, its utility will be in the information gleaned from the pilot study and a follow-on that may include several hundred thousand individuals. These data should provide “population-based evidence upon which to base regulatory decisions to ensure blood safety,” she said.
Donation policies outside the United States
Whether a change in blood donation deferral policies for MSM would be a shortened window or a move toward a behavioral questionnaire is currently not known. Globally, a variety of practices are used for blood screening, said Mindy Goldman, MD, medical director of Canadian Blood Services, who reviewed international perspectives on blood donation for MSM.
“There’s no general consensus on donation deferrals internationally,” she said. Factors influencing policy can include epidemiology, risk analysis, modeling, and history of response to threats in the past.
However, “there’s basically a couple of main approaches” to handling deferrals for MSM, Dr. Goldman said. One is time-based deferral – the strategy used in the United States, as well as Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia.
Japan and the U.K. have recently moved to 3-month deferral periods, a figure arrived at by doubling the window period for nucleic acid testing for HIV, roughly, Dr. Goldman said. Early data from the U.K. experience has not shown an increase in HIV rates among donors, or an increase in NAT-only positive donors, she said. An application to move from a 12-month to a 3-month deferral period is pending in Canada.
A strong advantage of time-based deferral as a risk management strategy, Dr. Goldman said, is standardization. “For us, standardization is close to godliness.”
However, she added, “another major limitation is that you’re still deferring all sexually active MSM, including those who are in a stable monogamous relationship from donating. From a justice perspective for the lowest risk population of MSM – they are still being deferred using this type of approach.”
Some nations, such as Spain and Italy, use individual risk assessment via physician-led interviews. These approaches are often not standardized. “There’s no national uniform questionnaire, so there’s less standardization, and more variability between blood centers,” Dr. Goldman said. “So you wind up trying to compare apples with oranges.”
This means the results are harder to evaluate on a national level. However, there appears to be higher residual risk, with HIV rates among first-time donors approaching those of the general population, Dr. Goldman said.
Another strategy, used in France, is a test-retest model, where blood from first-time MSM that initially tests negative for HIV is held until the individual returns for re-testing or an additional donation, with a second negative test. This approach increases operational complexity and cost, noted Dr. Goldman, and because of the short shelf life of platelets, it’s not practical for this blood component.
In general questioning and discussion after this and other background presentations, the committee could agree on one point: this isn’t an easy question.
“I’m increasingly struck by how difficult this problem is,” said committee member Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Regarding just the problem of completing the pilot study, Dr. Lewis commented, “It sounds like it’s going to be impossible to get the data that directly answers the questions.”
Peter Marx, MD, PhD, who directs the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which oversees blood products safety, joined the discussion to acknowledge the difficulty, but underscore the social importance of a careful examination of the current MSM donation policy.
“We understand the issues here…. With all due respect to our European colleagues, there’s not enough data. That’s the point of this study; we also know that the U.S. has a very different epidemiology of HIV than the U.K. and a lot of other places,” Dr. Marx said. “The pilot study is a way to get some data where we might be able to get away from a time-based deferral. The LGBT community finds any time-based deferral discriminatory.”
Pathogen reduction technology
The committee heard a proposal for a completely different strategy during its afternoon session: pathogen reduction technology (PRT) holds promise to achieve virtual elimination of HIV and other pathogens from donated blood products.
The FDA is reviewing a variance request from the nonprofit blood donation organization Bloodworks Northwest organization to use PRT for apheresis platelet donations from MSM who would otherwise be deferred because of sexual activity within the 12-month deferral window.
James AuBuchon, MD, president of Bloodworks Northwest, explained that his organization takes in about 225,000 donations annually. The variance sought would use the FDA-approved INTERCEPT device to achieve pathogen reduction for donations that meet all requirements except the MSM deferral, and that would still undergo all relevant transfusion transmitted infection testing.
The INTERCEPT device uses amotosalen, which intercalates with DNA and RNA, inactivating it after exposure to ultraviolet A light. Amotosalen is then removed from the blood product before administration. The pathogen reduction activity doesn’t interfere with platelets or plasma, and is active against a wide range of viruses, bacteria, and fungal pathogens, explained Dr. AuBuchon, who is also a professor of hematology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. AuBuchon walked the committee through procedures designed to flag donors for PRT platelet apheresis, and to ensure these donations receive the intended PRT treatment. Platelets were chosen for this variance request, he explained, because demand outstrips supply. “We are all spending additional time and resources in recruiting a new framework and demographic, and it is exceedingly difficult to keep enough donors coming through the door,” he said. “Our platelet utilization climbs continually – it’s up 15% in the last 4 years.”
Committee members circled around the idea that all risk can’t be eliminated, even with the highly effective PRT technology. But the risk is exceedingly low, said committee chair Richard Kaufman, MD, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s not possible to get rid of the window. We can kind of hammer down the risk by shrinking down the window by using incredibly sensitive tests. But that risk continues to exist. Pathogen reduction can take care of that residual risk…. So what’s left is really quite a low risk,” Dr. Kaufman said.
Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, concurred, noting that pathogen reduction techniques are already in use for many other blood products, particularly within the plasma industry.
Wrapping up, Dr. Kaufman asked individual committee members to summarize their position on the variance request, though the FDA had not placed a voting question before the committee. Consensus in the room was that this real-world examination of PRT could point to a path to expanding the donor pool while maintaining patient safety – a concern all agreed was paramount.
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its committees.
The
At a meeting of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee, the agency shared the content of the 5-item questionnaire and reviewed the proposed study design with committee members, who were asked to comment – but not vote – on the best path forward for MSM donation policies.
The FDA is “committed to ongoing evaluation of the MSM deferral policy” and remains open to adjusting the policy based on the best available scientific evidence, said Barbee Whitaker, PhD, a lead scientist in the agency’s Office of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Disease
After recruiting 2,000 men who have had sex with men at least once during the past 3 months, the study will aim to identify individuals who have very recently become HIV infected, in order to assess the discriminant function of the set of behavioral questions that are proposed in the questionnaire.
The crux of the problem currently, noted Dr. Whitaker, is identifying those individuals who are very recently infected with HIV. Nucleic acid testing has tightened the window of undetectability considerably, but the current 12-month deferral window after men have had sexual contact with other men is designed to ensure safety of the blood supply.
Social justice concerns have been raised about the blanket deferral, said Dr. Whitaker; the behavioral questions in the pilot study will ask about the number of different sexual partners men have had within the past 1, 3, and 12 months and ask about the type of sexual contact (oral sex, or anal penetrative or receptive intercourse). The questionnaire also asks about sex with a partner known to be HIV positive, condom use, and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
The FDA will ask for proposals to conduct the study with an eye to having sites in such cities as Washington, Atlanta, and Miami, which have high incidences of HIV, to improve chances of early detection.
The behavioral questionnaire is not seen as an immediate replacement for the 12-month deferral policy, the FDA made clear in its briefing documents and in discussion with the committee. Instead, its utility will be in the information gleaned from the pilot study and a follow-on that may include several hundred thousand individuals. These data should provide “population-based evidence upon which to base regulatory decisions to ensure blood safety,” she said.
Donation policies outside the United States
Whether a change in blood donation deferral policies for MSM would be a shortened window or a move toward a behavioral questionnaire is currently not known. Globally, a variety of practices are used for blood screening, said Mindy Goldman, MD, medical director of Canadian Blood Services, who reviewed international perspectives on blood donation for MSM.
“There’s no general consensus on donation deferrals internationally,” she said. Factors influencing policy can include epidemiology, risk analysis, modeling, and history of response to threats in the past.
However, “there’s basically a couple of main approaches” to handling deferrals for MSM, Dr. Goldman said. One is time-based deferral – the strategy used in the United States, as well as Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia.
Japan and the U.K. have recently moved to 3-month deferral periods, a figure arrived at by doubling the window period for nucleic acid testing for HIV, roughly, Dr. Goldman said. Early data from the U.K. experience has not shown an increase in HIV rates among donors, or an increase in NAT-only positive donors, she said. An application to move from a 12-month to a 3-month deferral period is pending in Canada.
A strong advantage of time-based deferral as a risk management strategy, Dr. Goldman said, is standardization. “For us, standardization is close to godliness.”
However, she added, “another major limitation is that you’re still deferring all sexually active MSM, including those who are in a stable monogamous relationship from donating. From a justice perspective for the lowest risk population of MSM – they are still being deferred using this type of approach.”
Some nations, such as Spain and Italy, use individual risk assessment via physician-led interviews. These approaches are often not standardized. “There’s no national uniform questionnaire, so there’s less standardization, and more variability between blood centers,” Dr. Goldman said. “So you wind up trying to compare apples with oranges.”
This means the results are harder to evaluate on a national level. However, there appears to be higher residual risk, with HIV rates among first-time donors approaching those of the general population, Dr. Goldman said.
Another strategy, used in France, is a test-retest model, where blood from first-time MSM that initially tests negative for HIV is held until the individual returns for re-testing or an additional donation, with a second negative test. This approach increases operational complexity and cost, noted Dr. Goldman, and because of the short shelf life of platelets, it’s not practical for this blood component.
In general questioning and discussion after this and other background presentations, the committee could agree on one point: this isn’t an easy question.
“I’m increasingly struck by how difficult this problem is,” said committee member Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Regarding just the problem of completing the pilot study, Dr. Lewis commented, “It sounds like it’s going to be impossible to get the data that directly answers the questions.”
Peter Marx, MD, PhD, who directs the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which oversees blood products safety, joined the discussion to acknowledge the difficulty, but underscore the social importance of a careful examination of the current MSM donation policy.
“We understand the issues here…. With all due respect to our European colleagues, there’s not enough data. That’s the point of this study; we also know that the U.S. has a very different epidemiology of HIV than the U.K. and a lot of other places,” Dr. Marx said. “The pilot study is a way to get some data where we might be able to get away from a time-based deferral. The LGBT community finds any time-based deferral discriminatory.”
Pathogen reduction technology
The committee heard a proposal for a completely different strategy during its afternoon session: pathogen reduction technology (PRT) holds promise to achieve virtual elimination of HIV and other pathogens from donated blood products.
The FDA is reviewing a variance request from the nonprofit blood donation organization Bloodworks Northwest organization to use PRT for apheresis platelet donations from MSM who would otherwise be deferred because of sexual activity within the 12-month deferral window.
James AuBuchon, MD, president of Bloodworks Northwest, explained that his organization takes in about 225,000 donations annually. The variance sought would use the FDA-approved INTERCEPT device to achieve pathogen reduction for donations that meet all requirements except the MSM deferral, and that would still undergo all relevant transfusion transmitted infection testing.
The INTERCEPT device uses amotosalen, which intercalates with DNA and RNA, inactivating it after exposure to ultraviolet A light. Amotosalen is then removed from the blood product before administration. The pathogen reduction activity doesn’t interfere with platelets or plasma, and is active against a wide range of viruses, bacteria, and fungal pathogens, explained Dr. AuBuchon, who is also a professor of hematology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. AuBuchon walked the committee through procedures designed to flag donors for PRT platelet apheresis, and to ensure these donations receive the intended PRT treatment. Platelets were chosen for this variance request, he explained, because demand outstrips supply. “We are all spending additional time and resources in recruiting a new framework and demographic, and it is exceedingly difficult to keep enough donors coming through the door,” he said. “Our platelet utilization climbs continually – it’s up 15% in the last 4 years.”
Committee members circled around the idea that all risk can’t be eliminated, even with the highly effective PRT technology. But the risk is exceedingly low, said committee chair Richard Kaufman, MD, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s not possible to get rid of the window. We can kind of hammer down the risk by shrinking down the window by using incredibly sensitive tests. But that risk continues to exist. Pathogen reduction can take care of that residual risk…. So what’s left is really quite a low risk,” Dr. Kaufman said.
Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, concurred, noting that pathogen reduction techniques are already in use for many other blood products, particularly within the plasma industry.
Wrapping up, Dr. Kaufman asked individual committee members to summarize their position on the variance request, though the FDA had not placed a voting question before the committee. Consensus in the room was that this real-world examination of PRT could point to a path to expanding the donor pool while maintaining patient safety – a concern all agreed was paramount.
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its committees.
The
At a meeting of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee, the agency shared the content of the 5-item questionnaire and reviewed the proposed study design with committee members, who were asked to comment – but not vote – on the best path forward for MSM donation policies.
The FDA is “committed to ongoing evaluation of the MSM deferral policy” and remains open to adjusting the policy based on the best available scientific evidence, said Barbee Whitaker, PhD, a lead scientist in the agency’s Office of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Disease
After recruiting 2,000 men who have had sex with men at least once during the past 3 months, the study will aim to identify individuals who have very recently become HIV infected, in order to assess the discriminant function of the set of behavioral questions that are proposed in the questionnaire.
The crux of the problem currently, noted Dr. Whitaker, is identifying those individuals who are very recently infected with HIV. Nucleic acid testing has tightened the window of undetectability considerably, but the current 12-month deferral window after men have had sexual contact with other men is designed to ensure safety of the blood supply.
Social justice concerns have been raised about the blanket deferral, said Dr. Whitaker; the behavioral questions in the pilot study will ask about the number of different sexual partners men have had within the past 1, 3, and 12 months and ask about the type of sexual contact (oral sex, or anal penetrative or receptive intercourse). The questionnaire also asks about sex with a partner known to be HIV positive, condom use, and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
The FDA will ask for proposals to conduct the study with an eye to having sites in such cities as Washington, Atlanta, and Miami, which have high incidences of HIV, to improve chances of early detection.
The behavioral questionnaire is not seen as an immediate replacement for the 12-month deferral policy, the FDA made clear in its briefing documents and in discussion with the committee. Instead, its utility will be in the information gleaned from the pilot study and a follow-on that may include several hundred thousand individuals. These data should provide “population-based evidence upon which to base regulatory decisions to ensure blood safety,” she said.
Donation policies outside the United States
Whether a change in blood donation deferral policies for MSM would be a shortened window or a move toward a behavioral questionnaire is currently not known. Globally, a variety of practices are used for blood screening, said Mindy Goldman, MD, medical director of Canadian Blood Services, who reviewed international perspectives on blood donation for MSM.
“There’s no general consensus on donation deferrals internationally,” she said. Factors influencing policy can include epidemiology, risk analysis, modeling, and history of response to threats in the past.
However, “there’s basically a couple of main approaches” to handling deferrals for MSM, Dr. Goldman said. One is time-based deferral – the strategy used in the United States, as well as Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia.
Japan and the U.K. have recently moved to 3-month deferral periods, a figure arrived at by doubling the window period for nucleic acid testing for HIV, roughly, Dr. Goldman said. Early data from the U.K. experience has not shown an increase in HIV rates among donors, or an increase in NAT-only positive donors, she said. An application to move from a 12-month to a 3-month deferral period is pending in Canada.
A strong advantage of time-based deferral as a risk management strategy, Dr. Goldman said, is standardization. “For us, standardization is close to godliness.”
However, she added, “another major limitation is that you’re still deferring all sexually active MSM, including those who are in a stable monogamous relationship from donating. From a justice perspective for the lowest risk population of MSM – they are still being deferred using this type of approach.”
Some nations, such as Spain and Italy, use individual risk assessment via physician-led interviews. These approaches are often not standardized. “There’s no national uniform questionnaire, so there’s less standardization, and more variability between blood centers,” Dr. Goldman said. “So you wind up trying to compare apples with oranges.”
This means the results are harder to evaluate on a national level. However, there appears to be higher residual risk, with HIV rates among first-time donors approaching those of the general population, Dr. Goldman said.
Another strategy, used in France, is a test-retest model, where blood from first-time MSM that initially tests negative for HIV is held until the individual returns for re-testing or an additional donation, with a second negative test. This approach increases operational complexity and cost, noted Dr. Goldman, and because of the short shelf life of platelets, it’s not practical for this blood component.
In general questioning and discussion after this and other background presentations, the committee could agree on one point: this isn’t an easy question.
“I’m increasingly struck by how difficult this problem is,” said committee member Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Regarding just the problem of completing the pilot study, Dr. Lewis commented, “It sounds like it’s going to be impossible to get the data that directly answers the questions.”
Peter Marx, MD, PhD, who directs the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which oversees blood products safety, joined the discussion to acknowledge the difficulty, but underscore the social importance of a careful examination of the current MSM donation policy.
“We understand the issues here…. With all due respect to our European colleagues, there’s not enough data. That’s the point of this study; we also know that the U.S. has a very different epidemiology of HIV than the U.K. and a lot of other places,” Dr. Marx said. “The pilot study is a way to get some data where we might be able to get away from a time-based deferral. The LGBT community finds any time-based deferral discriminatory.”
Pathogen reduction technology
The committee heard a proposal for a completely different strategy during its afternoon session: pathogen reduction technology (PRT) holds promise to achieve virtual elimination of HIV and other pathogens from donated blood products.
The FDA is reviewing a variance request from the nonprofit blood donation organization Bloodworks Northwest organization to use PRT for apheresis platelet donations from MSM who would otherwise be deferred because of sexual activity within the 12-month deferral window.
James AuBuchon, MD, president of Bloodworks Northwest, explained that his organization takes in about 225,000 donations annually. The variance sought would use the FDA-approved INTERCEPT device to achieve pathogen reduction for donations that meet all requirements except the MSM deferral, and that would still undergo all relevant transfusion transmitted infection testing.
The INTERCEPT device uses amotosalen, which intercalates with DNA and RNA, inactivating it after exposure to ultraviolet A light. Amotosalen is then removed from the blood product before administration. The pathogen reduction activity doesn’t interfere with platelets or plasma, and is active against a wide range of viruses, bacteria, and fungal pathogens, explained Dr. AuBuchon, who is also a professor of hematology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Dr. AuBuchon walked the committee through procedures designed to flag donors for PRT platelet apheresis, and to ensure these donations receive the intended PRT treatment. Platelets were chosen for this variance request, he explained, because demand outstrips supply. “We are all spending additional time and resources in recruiting a new framework and demographic, and it is exceedingly difficult to keep enough donors coming through the door,” he said. “Our platelet utilization climbs continually – it’s up 15% in the last 4 years.”
Committee members circled around the idea that all risk can’t be eliminated, even with the highly effective PRT technology. But the risk is exceedingly low, said committee chair Richard Kaufman, MD, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s not possible to get rid of the window. We can kind of hammer down the risk by shrinking down the window by using incredibly sensitive tests. But that risk continues to exist. Pathogen reduction can take care of that residual risk…. So what’s left is really quite a low risk,” Dr. Kaufman said.
Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, concurred, noting that pathogen reduction techniques are already in use for many other blood products, particularly within the plasma industry.
Wrapping up, Dr. Kaufman asked individual committee members to summarize their position on the variance request, though the FDA had not placed a voting question before the committee. Consensus in the room was that this real-world examination of PRT could point to a path to expanding the donor pool while maintaining patient safety – a concern all agreed was paramount.
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its committees.
FROM AN FDA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
FDA committee advises status quo for blood supply Zika testing
Most members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee considered that data support maintaining current testing protocols for Zika virus in the blood donor pool. However, committee discussion entertained the idea of revisiting testing strategies after another year or 2 of Zika virus epidemiological data are available.
In its last guidance regarding Zika virus testing, issued in July 2018, the FDA recommended that either minipool nucleic acid testing (MP NAT) or individual donor (ID) NAT be used to screen for Zika virus. Current guidance still requires conversion to all-ID NAT “when certain threshold conditions are met that indicate an increased risk of suspected mosquito-borne transmission in a defined geographic collection area.”
In the first of three separate votes, 11 of 15 voting members of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) answered in the affirmative to the question of whether available data support continuing the status quo for Zika testing. Committee members then were asked to weigh whether current data support scaling back to a regional testing strategy targeting at-risk areas. Here, six committee members answered in the affirmative, and nine in the negative.
Just one committee member, F. Blaine Hollinger, MD, voted in favor of the third option, elimination of all Zika virus testing without reintroducing donor screening for risk factors in risk-free areas pending another outbreak in the United States. Dr. Hollinger is a professor of virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The committee as whole wasn’t swayed by a line of questioning put forward by chairman Richard Kaufman, MD. “I will be the devil’s advocate a little bit: We learned that there have been zero confirmed positives from blood donors for the past year. Would anyone be comfortable with just stopping screening of donors?” asked Dr. Kaufman, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
A wide-ranging morning of presentations put data regarding historical trends and current global Zika hot spots in front of the committee. Current upticks in infection rates in northwest Mexico and in some states in India were areas of concern, given North American travel patterns, noted speaker Marc Fisher, MD, of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Arboviral Disease Branch (Fort Collins, Colo.) “We’re going to see sporadic outbreaks; it’s hard to predict the future,” he said. “The new outbreak in India raises concerns.”
Briefing information from the FDA explained that Zika virus local transmission peaked in the United States in late summer of 2016. More than 5,000 cases were reported in the United States and over 36,000 in Puerto Rico. This has plummeted to 220 in 2018, with about two-thirds of these cases occurring in the territories, mostly (97%) from Puerto Rico across all 3 years.
Zika viremic blood donors dropped by an order of magnitude yearly, totaling 363 in 2016, 38 in 2017, and just 3 in 2018. Of the 363 detected in 2016, 96% came from Puerto Rico or Florida, noted Dr. Fisher.
The number of suspected and confirmed cases in the Americas overall has also dropped from over 650,000 in 2016 to under 30,000 in 2018, with most cases in 2018 being suspected rather than laboratory confirmed. In contrast to testing conducted in North America, few cases in much of Central and South America were laboratory confirmed.
Asymptomatic infections have occurred in blood donors, said the FDA, with 1.8% of blood donations in Puerto Rico testing positive for Zika virus during the peak of the outbreak. Transmission by transfusion is thought to have occurred in Brazil.
Although Zika virus infections have plummeted in the United States and worldwide, prevalence and rates of local transmission are unpredictable, said the FDA, which pointed to sporadic increases in autochthonous transmission of viruses such as dengue and chikungunya that are carried by the same mosquito vector as Zika.
Some of the committee’s discussion centered around finding a way to carve out protection for those most harmed by Zika virus – pregnant women and their fetuses. Martin Schreiber, MD, professor of surgery at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, proposed a point-of-care testing strategy in which only blood destined for pregnant women would be tested for Zika virus. Dr. Schreiber, a trauma surgeon, put forward the rationale that Zika virus causes harm almost exclusively to fetuses, except for rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In response, Dr. Kaufman pointed out that with rare exceptions for some bacterial testing, all testing is done from samples taken at the point of donation. The supply chain for donor blood is not set up to accommodate point-of-care testing, he said.
Answering questions about another targeted strategy – maintaining a separate, Zika-tested supply of blood for pregnant women – Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, said, “Most hospitals do not want, and are very adamant against, carrying a dual inventory.”
Ultimately, the committee’s discussion swung toward the realization that it may be too soon after the recent spike in U.S. Zika cases to plot the best course for ongoing testing strategies. “We are at the tail end of a waning epidemic. ... I think it would probably be a pretty easy question for the committee and for the agency if we actually had some way of having a crystal ball and knowing that the current trend was likely to continue,” said Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
“I think that is not the question,” he went on. “I think the question is, What is the optimal strategy if we have no idea if that tail is going to continue in this current trend. ... And that maybe the committee ought to be thinking about what is the right strategy for the next 2 years – with an underlying assumption that this is a question that can be brought back as we learn more about how this disease behaves.”
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.
Most members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee considered that data support maintaining current testing protocols for Zika virus in the blood donor pool. However, committee discussion entertained the idea of revisiting testing strategies after another year or 2 of Zika virus epidemiological data are available.
In its last guidance regarding Zika virus testing, issued in July 2018, the FDA recommended that either minipool nucleic acid testing (MP NAT) or individual donor (ID) NAT be used to screen for Zika virus. Current guidance still requires conversion to all-ID NAT “when certain threshold conditions are met that indicate an increased risk of suspected mosquito-borne transmission in a defined geographic collection area.”
In the first of three separate votes, 11 of 15 voting members of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) answered in the affirmative to the question of whether available data support continuing the status quo for Zika testing. Committee members then were asked to weigh whether current data support scaling back to a regional testing strategy targeting at-risk areas. Here, six committee members answered in the affirmative, and nine in the negative.
Just one committee member, F. Blaine Hollinger, MD, voted in favor of the third option, elimination of all Zika virus testing without reintroducing donor screening for risk factors in risk-free areas pending another outbreak in the United States. Dr. Hollinger is a professor of virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The committee as whole wasn’t swayed by a line of questioning put forward by chairman Richard Kaufman, MD. “I will be the devil’s advocate a little bit: We learned that there have been zero confirmed positives from blood donors for the past year. Would anyone be comfortable with just stopping screening of donors?” asked Dr. Kaufman, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
A wide-ranging morning of presentations put data regarding historical trends and current global Zika hot spots in front of the committee. Current upticks in infection rates in northwest Mexico and in some states in India were areas of concern, given North American travel patterns, noted speaker Marc Fisher, MD, of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Arboviral Disease Branch (Fort Collins, Colo.) “We’re going to see sporadic outbreaks; it’s hard to predict the future,” he said. “The new outbreak in India raises concerns.”
Briefing information from the FDA explained that Zika virus local transmission peaked in the United States in late summer of 2016. More than 5,000 cases were reported in the United States and over 36,000 in Puerto Rico. This has plummeted to 220 in 2018, with about two-thirds of these cases occurring in the territories, mostly (97%) from Puerto Rico across all 3 years.
Zika viremic blood donors dropped by an order of magnitude yearly, totaling 363 in 2016, 38 in 2017, and just 3 in 2018. Of the 363 detected in 2016, 96% came from Puerto Rico or Florida, noted Dr. Fisher.
The number of suspected and confirmed cases in the Americas overall has also dropped from over 650,000 in 2016 to under 30,000 in 2018, with most cases in 2018 being suspected rather than laboratory confirmed. In contrast to testing conducted in North America, few cases in much of Central and South America were laboratory confirmed.
Asymptomatic infections have occurred in blood donors, said the FDA, with 1.8% of blood donations in Puerto Rico testing positive for Zika virus during the peak of the outbreak. Transmission by transfusion is thought to have occurred in Brazil.
Although Zika virus infections have plummeted in the United States and worldwide, prevalence and rates of local transmission are unpredictable, said the FDA, which pointed to sporadic increases in autochthonous transmission of viruses such as dengue and chikungunya that are carried by the same mosquito vector as Zika.
Some of the committee’s discussion centered around finding a way to carve out protection for those most harmed by Zika virus – pregnant women and their fetuses. Martin Schreiber, MD, professor of surgery at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, proposed a point-of-care testing strategy in which only blood destined for pregnant women would be tested for Zika virus. Dr. Schreiber, a trauma surgeon, put forward the rationale that Zika virus causes harm almost exclusively to fetuses, except for rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In response, Dr. Kaufman pointed out that with rare exceptions for some bacterial testing, all testing is done from samples taken at the point of donation. The supply chain for donor blood is not set up to accommodate point-of-care testing, he said.
Answering questions about another targeted strategy – maintaining a separate, Zika-tested supply of blood for pregnant women – Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, said, “Most hospitals do not want, and are very adamant against, carrying a dual inventory.”
Ultimately, the committee’s discussion swung toward the realization that it may be too soon after the recent spike in U.S. Zika cases to plot the best course for ongoing testing strategies. “We are at the tail end of a waning epidemic. ... I think it would probably be a pretty easy question for the committee and for the agency if we actually had some way of having a crystal ball and knowing that the current trend was likely to continue,” said Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
“I think that is not the question,” he went on. “I think the question is, What is the optimal strategy if we have no idea if that tail is going to continue in this current trend. ... And that maybe the committee ought to be thinking about what is the right strategy for the next 2 years – with an underlying assumption that this is a question that can be brought back as we learn more about how this disease behaves.”
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.
Most members of a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee considered that data support maintaining current testing protocols for Zika virus in the blood donor pool. However, committee discussion entertained the idea of revisiting testing strategies after another year or 2 of Zika virus epidemiological data are available.
In its last guidance regarding Zika virus testing, issued in July 2018, the FDA recommended that either minipool nucleic acid testing (MP NAT) or individual donor (ID) NAT be used to screen for Zika virus. Current guidance still requires conversion to all-ID NAT “when certain threshold conditions are met that indicate an increased risk of suspected mosquito-borne transmission in a defined geographic collection area.”
In the first of three separate votes, 11 of 15 voting members of the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) answered in the affirmative to the question of whether available data support continuing the status quo for Zika testing. Committee members then were asked to weigh whether current data support scaling back to a regional testing strategy targeting at-risk areas. Here, six committee members answered in the affirmative, and nine in the negative.
Just one committee member, F. Blaine Hollinger, MD, voted in favor of the third option, elimination of all Zika virus testing without reintroducing donor screening for risk factors in risk-free areas pending another outbreak in the United States. Dr. Hollinger is a professor of virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The committee as whole wasn’t swayed by a line of questioning put forward by chairman Richard Kaufman, MD. “I will be the devil’s advocate a little bit: We learned that there have been zero confirmed positives from blood donors for the past year. Would anyone be comfortable with just stopping screening of donors?” asked Dr. Kaufman, medical director of the adult transfusion service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
A wide-ranging morning of presentations put data regarding historical trends and current global Zika hot spots in front of the committee. Current upticks in infection rates in northwest Mexico and in some states in India were areas of concern, given North American travel patterns, noted speaker Marc Fisher, MD, of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Arboviral Disease Branch (Fort Collins, Colo.) “We’re going to see sporadic outbreaks; it’s hard to predict the future,” he said. “The new outbreak in India raises concerns.”
Briefing information from the FDA explained that Zika virus local transmission peaked in the United States in late summer of 2016. More than 5,000 cases were reported in the United States and over 36,000 in Puerto Rico. This has plummeted to 220 in 2018, with about two-thirds of these cases occurring in the territories, mostly (97%) from Puerto Rico across all 3 years.
Zika viremic blood donors dropped by an order of magnitude yearly, totaling 363 in 2016, 38 in 2017, and just 3 in 2018. Of the 363 detected in 2016, 96% came from Puerto Rico or Florida, noted Dr. Fisher.
The number of suspected and confirmed cases in the Americas overall has also dropped from over 650,000 in 2016 to under 30,000 in 2018, with most cases in 2018 being suspected rather than laboratory confirmed. In contrast to testing conducted in North America, few cases in much of Central and South America were laboratory confirmed.
Asymptomatic infections have occurred in blood donors, said the FDA, with 1.8% of blood donations in Puerto Rico testing positive for Zika virus during the peak of the outbreak. Transmission by transfusion is thought to have occurred in Brazil.
Although Zika virus infections have plummeted in the United States and worldwide, prevalence and rates of local transmission are unpredictable, said the FDA, which pointed to sporadic increases in autochthonous transmission of viruses such as dengue and chikungunya that are carried by the same mosquito vector as Zika.
Some of the committee’s discussion centered around finding a way to carve out protection for those most harmed by Zika virus – pregnant women and their fetuses. Martin Schreiber, MD, professor of surgery at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, proposed a point-of-care testing strategy in which only blood destined for pregnant women would be tested for Zika virus. Dr. Schreiber, a trauma surgeon, put forward the rationale that Zika virus causes harm almost exclusively to fetuses, except for rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In response, Dr. Kaufman pointed out that with rare exceptions for some bacterial testing, all testing is done from samples taken at the point of donation. The supply chain for donor blood is not set up to accommodate point-of-care testing, he said.
Answering questions about another targeted strategy – maintaining a separate, Zika-tested supply of blood for pregnant women – Susan Stramer, PhD, vice president of scientific affairs for the American Red Cross, said, “Most hospitals do not want, and are very adamant against, carrying a dual inventory.”
Ultimately, the committee’s discussion swung toward the realization that it may be too soon after the recent spike in U.S. Zika cases to plot the best course for ongoing testing strategies. “We are at the tail end of a waning epidemic. ... I think it would probably be a pretty easy question for the committee and for the agency if we actually had some way of having a crystal ball and knowing that the current trend was likely to continue,” said Roger Lewis, MD, PhD, professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chair of the department of emergency medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
“I think that is not the question,” he went on. “I think the question is, What is the optimal strategy if we have no idea if that tail is going to continue in this current trend. ... And that maybe the committee ought to be thinking about what is the right strategy for the next 2 years – with an underlying assumption that this is a question that can be brought back as we learn more about how this disease behaves.”
The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.
Postcesarean pain relief better on nonopioid regimen
LAS VEGAS – Women who had cesarean delivery and received a nonopioid pain control regimen at hospital discharge had lower pain scores by 4 weeks post partum than those who also received opioids, according to study results shared during a fellows session at the meeting presented by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
At 2-4 weeks post partum, the mean pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS) was 12/100 mm for women on the nonopioid regimen, compared with 16/100 mm for women who received opioids, using an intention-to-treat analysis. The median pain score for those in the nonopioid arm was 0, compared with 6 for those in the opioid arm.
The findings surprised Jenifer Dinis, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Texas, Houston, and her collaborators, because they had hypothesized merely that the two groups would have similar pain scores 2-4 weeks after delivery.
Although women in the nonopioid arm were able to obtain a rescue hydrocodone prescription through the study, and some women obtained opioids from their private physician, they still used less than half as much opioid medication as women in the opioid arm (21 versus 43 morphine milligram equivalents, P less than .01).
However, women in the nonopioid arm did not use significantly more ibuprofen or acetaminophen, and there was no difference in patient satisfaction with the outpatient postpartum analgesic regimen between study arms. Somnolence was more common in the opioid arm (P = .03); no other medication side effects were significantly more common in one group than the other.
Overall, 22 of 76 (29%) women in the nonopioid arm took any opioids after discharge, compared with 59/81 (73%) in the opioid arm (P less than .01).
After cesarean delivery, the 170 participating women had an inpatient pain control regimen determined by their primary ob.gyn., Dr. Dinis said in her presentation. Patients were randomized 1:1 to their outpatient analgesia regimens on postoperative day 2 or 3, with appropriate prescriptions placed in patient charts. Participants received either a nonopioid regimen with prescriptions for 60 ibuprofen tablets (600 mg) and 60 acetaminophen tablets (325 mg), or to an opioid regimen that included ibuprofen plus hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5 (325 mg) 1-2 tablets every 4 hours.
Pain scores were assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after delivery, either at an in-person appointment or by means of a phone call and a provided email link.
The single-site study was designed as a parallel-group equivalence trial, to show noninferiority of one pain control regimen over the other. Women between the ages of 18 and 50 years were included if they had a cesarean delivery; both English- and Spanish-speaking women were enrolled.
Allowing for attrition and crossover, Dr. Dinis and her colleagues enrolled 85 patients per study arm to achieve sufficient statistical power to detect the difference needed. The investigators planned both an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis in their registered clinical trial.
Postpartum pain assessments were not obtained for 12 patients in the nonopioid group, and 9 in the opioid group, leaving 73 and 76 patients in each group for the per-protocol analysis, respectively.
At baseline, patients were a mean 28 years old, and a little over a quarter (28%) were nulliparous. Participants were overall about half African American and 34%-40% Hispanic. Over half (62%-72%) received Medicaid; most women (62%-75%) had body mass indices of 30 kg/m2 or more.
The mean gestational age at delivery was a little more than 36 weeks, with about half of deliveries being the participant’s first cesarean delivery. About 90% of women had a Pfannenstiel skin incision, with a low transverse uterine incision.
Patients were aware of their allocation, and the study results aren’t applicable to women with opioid or benzodiazepine use disorder, she noted. However, the study was pragmatic, included all types of cesarean deliveries, and was adequately powered to detect “the smallest clinically significant difference.”
Dr. Dinis reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dinis J et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S34, Abstract 42.
LAS VEGAS – Women who had cesarean delivery and received a nonopioid pain control regimen at hospital discharge had lower pain scores by 4 weeks post partum than those who also received opioids, according to study results shared during a fellows session at the meeting presented by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
At 2-4 weeks post partum, the mean pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS) was 12/100 mm for women on the nonopioid regimen, compared with 16/100 mm for women who received opioids, using an intention-to-treat analysis. The median pain score for those in the nonopioid arm was 0, compared with 6 for those in the opioid arm.
The findings surprised Jenifer Dinis, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Texas, Houston, and her collaborators, because they had hypothesized merely that the two groups would have similar pain scores 2-4 weeks after delivery.
Although women in the nonopioid arm were able to obtain a rescue hydrocodone prescription through the study, and some women obtained opioids from their private physician, they still used less than half as much opioid medication as women in the opioid arm (21 versus 43 morphine milligram equivalents, P less than .01).
However, women in the nonopioid arm did not use significantly more ibuprofen or acetaminophen, and there was no difference in patient satisfaction with the outpatient postpartum analgesic regimen between study arms. Somnolence was more common in the opioid arm (P = .03); no other medication side effects were significantly more common in one group than the other.
Overall, 22 of 76 (29%) women in the nonopioid arm took any opioids after discharge, compared with 59/81 (73%) in the opioid arm (P less than .01).
After cesarean delivery, the 170 participating women had an inpatient pain control regimen determined by their primary ob.gyn., Dr. Dinis said in her presentation. Patients were randomized 1:1 to their outpatient analgesia regimens on postoperative day 2 or 3, with appropriate prescriptions placed in patient charts. Participants received either a nonopioid regimen with prescriptions for 60 ibuprofen tablets (600 mg) and 60 acetaminophen tablets (325 mg), or to an opioid regimen that included ibuprofen plus hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5 (325 mg) 1-2 tablets every 4 hours.
Pain scores were assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after delivery, either at an in-person appointment or by means of a phone call and a provided email link.
The single-site study was designed as a parallel-group equivalence trial, to show noninferiority of one pain control regimen over the other. Women between the ages of 18 and 50 years were included if they had a cesarean delivery; both English- and Spanish-speaking women were enrolled.
Allowing for attrition and crossover, Dr. Dinis and her colleagues enrolled 85 patients per study arm to achieve sufficient statistical power to detect the difference needed. The investigators planned both an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis in their registered clinical trial.
Postpartum pain assessments were not obtained for 12 patients in the nonopioid group, and 9 in the opioid group, leaving 73 and 76 patients in each group for the per-protocol analysis, respectively.
At baseline, patients were a mean 28 years old, and a little over a quarter (28%) were nulliparous. Participants were overall about half African American and 34%-40% Hispanic. Over half (62%-72%) received Medicaid; most women (62%-75%) had body mass indices of 30 kg/m2 or more.
The mean gestational age at delivery was a little more than 36 weeks, with about half of deliveries being the participant’s first cesarean delivery. About 90% of women had a Pfannenstiel skin incision, with a low transverse uterine incision.
Patients were aware of their allocation, and the study results aren’t applicable to women with opioid or benzodiazepine use disorder, she noted. However, the study was pragmatic, included all types of cesarean deliveries, and was adequately powered to detect “the smallest clinically significant difference.”
Dr. Dinis reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dinis J et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S34, Abstract 42.
LAS VEGAS – Women who had cesarean delivery and received a nonopioid pain control regimen at hospital discharge had lower pain scores by 4 weeks post partum than those who also received opioids, according to study results shared during a fellows session at the meeting presented by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
At 2-4 weeks post partum, the mean pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS) was 12/100 mm for women on the nonopioid regimen, compared with 16/100 mm for women who received opioids, using an intention-to-treat analysis. The median pain score for those in the nonopioid arm was 0, compared with 6 for those in the opioid arm.
The findings surprised Jenifer Dinis, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Texas, Houston, and her collaborators, because they had hypothesized merely that the two groups would have similar pain scores 2-4 weeks after delivery.
Although women in the nonopioid arm were able to obtain a rescue hydrocodone prescription through the study, and some women obtained opioids from their private physician, they still used less than half as much opioid medication as women in the opioid arm (21 versus 43 morphine milligram equivalents, P less than .01).
However, women in the nonopioid arm did not use significantly more ibuprofen or acetaminophen, and there was no difference in patient satisfaction with the outpatient postpartum analgesic regimen between study arms. Somnolence was more common in the opioid arm (P = .03); no other medication side effects were significantly more common in one group than the other.
Overall, 22 of 76 (29%) women in the nonopioid arm took any opioids after discharge, compared with 59/81 (73%) in the opioid arm (P less than .01).
After cesarean delivery, the 170 participating women had an inpatient pain control regimen determined by their primary ob.gyn., Dr. Dinis said in her presentation. Patients were randomized 1:1 to their outpatient analgesia regimens on postoperative day 2 or 3, with appropriate prescriptions placed in patient charts. Participants received either a nonopioid regimen with prescriptions for 60 ibuprofen tablets (600 mg) and 60 acetaminophen tablets (325 mg), or to an opioid regimen that included ibuprofen plus hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5 (325 mg) 1-2 tablets every 4 hours.
Pain scores were assessed between 2 and 4 weeks after delivery, either at an in-person appointment or by means of a phone call and a provided email link.
The single-site study was designed as a parallel-group equivalence trial, to show noninferiority of one pain control regimen over the other. Women between the ages of 18 and 50 years were included if they had a cesarean delivery; both English- and Spanish-speaking women were enrolled.
Allowing for attrition and crossover, Dr. Dinis and her colleagues enrolled 85 patients per study arm to achieve sufficient statistical power to detect the difference needed. The investigators planned both an intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis in their registered clinical trial.
Postpartum pain assessments were not obtained for 12 patients in the nonopioid group, and 9 in the opioid group, leaving 73 and 76 patients in each group for the per-protocol analysis, respectively.
At baseline, patients were a mean 28 years old, and a little over a quarter (28%) were nulliparous. Participants were overall about half African American and 34%-40% Hispanic. Over half (62%-72%) received Medicaid; most women (62%-75%) had body mass indices of 30 kg/m2 or more.
The mean gestational age at delivery was a little more than 36 weeks, with about half of deliveries being the participant’s first cesarean delivery. About 90% of women had a Pfannenstiel skin incision, with a low transverse uterine incision.
Patients were aware of their allocation, and the study results aren’t applicable to women with opioid or benzodiazepine use disorder, she noted. However, the study was pragmatic, included all types of cesarean deliveries, and was adequately powered to detect “the smallest clinically significant difference.”
Dr. Dinis reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dinis J et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S34, Abstract 42.
REPORTING FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Successful external cephalic version more likely in taller, leaner women
LAS VEGAS – according to data shared in a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Race/ethnicity also had an impact on the likelihood that external cephalic version (ECV) would be successful.
In an interview, first author Ashley E. Skeith, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said that various characteristics of a pregnancy may affect the success of ECV, but it wasn’t known which maternal characteristics might be associated with greater success of the maneuver.
She and her collaborators found that rates of success were high overall, but that 84% of women 68 inches or taller had successful ECVs, compared with 78% of women less than 60 inches tall. Rates were 82% and 83% for women 60-64 inches and 64-68 inches tall, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; P less than .001).
The retrospective cohort study used data from 18,896 women who had singleton, breech, term gestations for whom ECV was attempted. Variables extracted from the medical record included maternal age, height, race, and prepregnancy body mass index (BMI).
For analysis, maternal BMI was grouped into four categories: underweight (BMI, less than 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI, 25-29 kg/m2), and obese (BMI, greater than 30 kg/m2).
Women who were normal weight had the highest likelihood of a successful ECV, at 86%, followed by underweight women at 85%. Women who were overweight and obese had lower success rates, at 82% and 78%, respectively (aOR, 0.86; P less than .001).
Compared with white women, black women had an aOR of 0.60 for successful ECV (P less than .001). The aOR for successful ECV for Asian women was 0.71; for Hispanic women, the aOR was 0.82. American Indian and Alaska Native women were slightly more likely to have successful ECV than white women, but the difference was not significant after statistical adjustment.
Neither advanced maternal age (greater than 35 years) nor adolescent pregnancy were associated with decreased likelihood of successful ECV.
Potential confounders included maternal education level and insurance status, how much weight was gained during pregnancy, whether an epidural was administered, and whether the mother had diabetes. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for these variables, said Ms. Skeith.
“External cephalic version is a safe procedure that reduces risk of cesarean delivery,” wrote Ms. Skeith and her colleagues. “Though fetal positioning and analgesia have been considered in the prediction of ECV success, [these] data [suggest] that maternal stature and race/ethnicity could be incorporated into potential prediction tools.”
Ms. Skeith reported no outside sources of funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Skeith AE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S445-7, Abstract 674.
LAS VEGAS – according to data shared in a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Race/ethnicity also had an impact on the likelihood that external cephalic version (ECV) would be successful.
In an interview, first author Ashley E. Skeith, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said that various characteristics of a pregnancy may affect the success of ECV, but it wasn’t known which maternal characteristics might be associated with greater success of the maneuver.
She and her collaborators found that rates of success were high overall, but that 84% of women 68 inches or taller had successful ECVs, compared with 78% of women less than 60 inches tall. Rates were 82% and 83% for women 60-64 inches and 64-68 inches tall, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; P less than .001).
The retrospective cohort study used data from 18,896 women who had singleton, breech, term gestations for whom ECV was attempted. Variables extracted from the medical record included maternal age, height, race, and prepregnancy body mass index (BMI).
For analysis, maternal BMI was grouped into four categories: underweight (BMI, less than 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI, 25-29 kg/m2), and obese (BMI, greater than 30 kg/m2).
Women who were normal weight had the highest likelihood of a successful ECV, at 86%, followed by underweight women at 85%. Women who were overweight and obese had lower success rates, at 82% and 78%, respectively (aOR, 0.86; P less than .001).
Compared with white women, black women had an aOR of 0.60 for successful ECV (P less than .001). The aOR for successful ECV for Asian women was 0.71; for Hispanic women, the aOR was 0.82. American Indian and Alaska Native women were slightly more likely to have successful ECV than white women, but the difference was not significant after statistical adjustment.
Neither advanced maternal age (greater than 35 years) nor adolescent pregnancy were associated with decreased likelihood of successful ECV.
Potential confounders included maternal education level and insurance status, how much weight was gained during pregnancy, whether an epidural was administered, and whether the mother had diabetes. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for these variables, said Ms. Skeith.
“External cephalic version is a safe procedure that reduces risk of cesarean delivery,” wrote Ms. Skeith and her colleagues. “Though fetal positioning and analgesia have been considered in the prediction of ECV success, [these] data [suggest] that maternal stature and race/ethnicity could be incorporated into potential prediction tools.”
Ms. Skeith reported no outside sources of funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Skeith AE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S445-7, Abstract 674.
LAS VEGAS – according to data shared in a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Race/ethnicity also had an impact on the likelihood that external cephalic version (ECV) would be successful.
In an interview, first author Ashley E. Skeith, a medical student at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said that various characteristics of a pregnancy may affect the success of ECV, but it wasn’t known which maternal characteristics might be associated with greater success of the maneuver.
She and her collaborators found that rates of success were high overall, but that 84% of women 68 inches or taller had successful ECVs, compared with 78% of women less than 60 inches tall. Rates were 82% and 83% for women 60-64 inches and 64-68 inches tall, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; P less than .001).
The retrospective cohort study used data from 18,896 women who had singleton, breech, term gestations for whom ECV was attempted. Variables extracted from the medical record included maternal age, height, race, and prepregnancy body mass index (BMI).
For analysis, maternal BMI was grouped into four categories: underweight (BMI, less than 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI, 25-29 kg/m2), and obese (BMI, greater than 30 kg/m2).
Women who were normal weight had the highest likelihood of a successful ECV, at 86%, followed by underweight women at 85%. Women who were overweight and obese had lower success rates, at 82% and 78%, respectively (aOR, 0.86; P less than .001).
Compared with white women, black women had an aOR of 0.60 for successful ECV (P less than .001). The aOR for successful ECV for Asian women was 0.71; for Hispanic women, the aOR was 0.82. American Indian and Alaska Native women were slightly more likely to have successful ECV than white women, but the difference was not significant after statistical adjustment.
Neither advanced maternal age (greater than 35 years) nor adolescent pregnancy were associated with decreased likelihood of successful ECV.
Potential confounders included maternal education level and insurance status, how much weight was gained during pregnancy, whether an epidural was administered, and whether the mother had diabetes. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for these variables, said Ms. Skeith.
“External cephalic version is a safe procedure that reduces risk of cesarean delivery,” wrote Ms. Skeith and her colleagues. “Though fetal positioning and analgesia have been considered in the prediction of ECV success, [these] data [suggest] that maternal stature and race/ethnicity could be incorporated into potential prediction tools.”
Ms. Skeith reported no outside sources of funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Skeith AE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;220(1):S445-7, Abstract 674.
REPORTING FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Knotless, absorbable sutures best staples for postcesarean skin closure
LAS VEGAS – compared with staples, in a single-site, retrospective study.
For women whose skin incisions were closed with knotless sutures, mean surgical time was 38 minutes; for women who received a staple closure, mean surgical time was 44 minutes (P less than .001). Also, fewer women whose incisions were closed with knotless sutures experienced surgical bleeding greater than 1,000 mL, compared with those who received staples (0.3% vs. 3.0%; P less than .001).
Two previous randomized, controlled trials comparing knotless sutures with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery were small and had methodological limitations, Inna Bleicher, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues reviewed records from 2,173 elective cesarean deliveries over a period of 4 years. Absorbable, antibacterial, knotless sutures were used for closure for 1,172 women, while staples were used for the remaining 1,001 women.
Over the study period, Dr. Bleicher noted that there was a gradual transition from the use of staples to absorbable, knotless sutures, which also were increasingly used for the hysterotomy closure. She added that, in conversation with peers at Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, where she practices as an ob.gyn, she’s found that physicians find the sutures easy and quick to use, because the sutures are double ended, allowing the possibility for two operators to work together in wound closure.
The study’s primary outcome measure was the rate of postoperative infection, defined as postoperative white blood count greater than 18,000 per microliter and antimicrobial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included C-reactive protein levels, hospital readmission for infection related to the delivery, duration of surgery, and surgical blood loss estimated at 1,000 mL or more.
A higher proportion of women in the staple closure group than the knotless suture group required postsurgical antibiotic treatment (11% vs. 10%), but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .243).
There were no significant differences in the groups in terms of maternal age (about 32 years), or gestational age at delivery (about 39 weeks).
“Our results suggest that cesarean scar skin closure with antibacterial knotless sutures did not increase, and may even reduce, the rates of postoperative infection, morbidity, surgical blood loss, and may shorten operation time,” wrote Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues.
Dr. Bleicher reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bleicher I et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan. 220;1:S622, Abstract 966.
LAS VEGAS – compared with staples, in a single-site, retrospective study.
For women whose skin incisions were closed with knotless sutures, mean surgical time was 38 minutes; for women who received a staple closure, mean surgical time was 44 minutes (P less than .001). Also, fewer women whose incisions were closed with knotless sutures experienced surgical bleeding greater than 1,000 mL, compared with those who received staples (0.3% vs. 3.0%; P less than .001).
Two previous randomized, controlled trials comparing knotless sutures with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery were small and had methodological limitations, Inna Bleicher, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues reviewed records from 2,173 elective cesarean deliveries over a period of 4 years. Absorbable, antibacterial, knotless sutures were used for closure for 1,172 women, while staples were used for the remaining 1,001 women.
Over the study period, Dr. Bleicher noted that there was a gradual transition from the use of staples to absorbable, knotless sutures, which also were increasingly used for the hysterotomy closure. She added that, in conversation with peers at Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, where she practices as an ob.gyn, she’s found that physicians find the sutures easy and quick to use, because the sutures are double ended, allowing the possibility for two operators to work together in wound closure.
The study’s primary outcome measure was the rate of postoperative infection, defined as postoperative white blood count greater than 18,000 per microliter and antimicrobial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included C-reactive protein levels, hospital readmission for infection related to the delivery, duration of surgery, and surgical blood loss estimated at 1,000 mL or more.
A higher proportion of women in the staple closure group than the knotless suture group required postsurgical antibiotic treatment (11% vs. 10%), but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .243).
There were no significant differences in the groups in terms of maternal age (about 32 years), or gestational age at delivery (about 39 weeks).
“Our results suggest that cesarean scar skin closure with antibacterial knotless sutures did not increase, and may even reduce, the rates of postoperative infection, morbidity, surgical blood loss, and may shorten operation time,” wrote Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues.
Dr. Bleicher reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bleicher I et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan. 220;1:S622, Abstract 966.
LAS VEGAS – compared with staples, in a single-site, retrospective study.
For women whose skin incisions were closed with knotless sutures, mean surgical time was 38 minutes; for women who received a staple closure, mean surgical time was 44 minutes (P less than .001). Also, fewer women whose incisions were closed with knotless sutures experienced surgical bleeding greater than 1,000 mL, compared with those who received staples (0.3% vs. 3.0%; P less than .001).
Two previous randomized, controlled trials comparing knotless sutures with staples for skin closure after cesarean delivery were small and had methodological limitations, Inna Bleicher, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues reviewed records from 2,173 elective cesarean deliveries over a period of 4 years. Absorbable, antibacterial, knotless sutures were used for closure for 1,172 women, while staples were used for the remaining 1,001 women.
Over the study period, Dr. Bleicher noted that there was a gradual transition from the use of staples to absorbable, knotless sutures, which also were increasingly used for the hysterotomy closure. She added that, in conversation with peers at Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, where she practices as an ob.gyn, she’s found that physicians find the sutures easy and quick to use, because the sutures are double ended, allowing the possibility for two operators to work together in wound closure.
The study’s primary outcome measure was the rate of postoperative infection, defined as postoperative white blood count greater than 18,000 per microliter and antimicrobial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included C-reactive protein levels, hospital readmission for infection related to the delivery, duration of surgery, and surgical blood loss estimated at 1,000 mL or more.
A higher proportion of women in the staple closure group than the knotless suture group required postsurgical antibiotic treatment (11% vs. 10%), but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance (P = .243).
There were no significant differences in the groups in terms of maternal age (about 32 years), or gestational age at delivery (about 39 weeks).
“Our results suggest that cesarean scar skin closure with antibacterial knotless sutures did not increase, and may even reduce, the rates of postoperative infection, morbidity, surgical blood loss, and may shorten operation time,” wrote Dr. Bleicher and her colleagues.
Dr. Bleicher reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bleicher I et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan. 220;1:S622, Abstract 966.
REPORTING FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Sex differences in MS: It’s the chromosomes, not just the hormones
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019
Genetic signature helps identify those at risk of MS
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019
