Megan Brooks

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 patients who are successfully weaned off a ventilator may take days, or even weeks, to regain consciousness, especially those who experienced episodes of hypoxemia while intubated, a new study shows.

“As we started to see the first patients waking up after successful COVID-19 ICU treatments, we also encountered many patients who remained comatose for days and weeks and then regained consciousness to become fully oriented,” co-senior investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, with NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, says in a news release.

The findings have immediate implications regarding life-sustaining therapies for unresponsive COVID-19 patients, the investigators note.

“In critical care medicine, one of our main tasks is to advise families about planning in the event a patient does not regain consciousness,” said co-senior author Jan Claassen, MD, with New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. 

“Our findings suggest that for patients with severe COVID, the decision to withdraw life support shouldn’t be based solely on prolonged periods of unconsciousness, as these patients may eventually recover,” Dr. Claassen adds.

The study was published online March 7 in Annals of Neurology.
 

Slow road back

The researchers examined 795 intubated patients with severe COVID-19 at three medical centers in New York during the first wave of the pandemic (March-July 2020). All patients had impaired consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] motor score less than 6) on day 7 of intubation.

A total of 571 patients (72%) survived and regained consciousness.

The median time to recovery of consciousness was 30 days. One-quarter of the patients recovered consciousness 10 days or longer after they stopped receiving ventilator support and 10% took 23 days or longer to recover.

Time to recovery of consciousness was associated with hypoxemia. The hazard ratio was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.68) with arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) less than or equal to 55 mm Hg and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.91) with a PaO2 less than or equal to 70 mm Hg.

Each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the odds of recovery of consciousness after accounting for confounding factors including sedation.

These findings were confirmed among patients without any imaging evidence of structural brain injury and in a non-overlapping cohort of 427 patients from the second wave of the pandemic (October-April 2021).

“These findings provide us with more accurate information to guide families who are deciding whether to continue life-sustaining therapy in unconscious COVID-19 patients,” co-senior author Brian Edlow, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, says in the news release.

“Encouragingly,” adds Dr. Claassen, “our study shows that the vast majority of unconscious COVID patients recover consciousness, but it is important to consider that we did not look at the quality of recovery. That’s something that should be the focus of long-term follow-up studies.”

The study was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation (JSMF). Dr. Schiff, Dr. Claassen, and Dr. Edlow have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

A visit with a friendly dog may be just what the doctor ordered for patients coming to the hospital for emergency care.

Patients in the emergency room who spent just 10 minutes with a trained therapy dog reported less pain, anxiety, and depression and improved well-being, researchers from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada found.

“The ER is an important community resource but also a scary place for most people,” James Stempien, MD, provincial department head of emergency medicine with the Saskatchewan Health Authority, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

“People tend to visit the ER on the worst day of their life, either for them or a loved one. Interacting with a therapy dog can make the ER visit a little calmer. We have also seen benefit for the staff that get to interact with the dogs as well,” he says.

“Thanks to our wonderful therapy dog volunteer teams, the cost is minimal and the result is priceless,” Dr. Stempien says.

The study, published in the journal PLOS One, builds on earlier “uncontrolled” studies by the Saskatchewan team.

Those studies showed that most ER patients wanted to visit with the therapy dog, if given a chance. After the encounter, patients reported feeling more comfortable, happier, and less distressed while waiting in the ER.

“A controlled trial was the natural next step,” says study investigator Colleen Dell, PhD, of One Health and Wellness at the University of Saskatchewan.

The study was done at the Royal University Hospital (RUH) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan -- the first emergency department in Canada to introduce therapy dogs to improve the experience of waiting patients.

Nearly 200 adults visiting the ER received either a 10-minute visit with a therapy dog and its handler in addition to usual care or just usual care.

The therapy dog visit had a positive impact on patient pain and related measures of anxiety, depression, and well-being.

“This did not occur in patients in the ER who did not visit with a therapy dog.

“This gives us confidence in the intervention,” Dr. Dell says.

Pain is a major reason that patients come to the ER, and interactions with a therapy dog may distract from that pain, the researchers believe.

The study results lend more evidence to research that shows animals can help in medical settings, says Kara Rauscher, a licensed social worker and interim director of behavioral health for Nashville CARES in Tennessee, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“There are clearly opportunities to replicate this study in other emergency departments to strengthen our understanding of the potential benefits of these programs,” she says.

Part of her work at Nashville CARES, an AIDS service organization, has been supporting care that moves away from questions like, “What’s wrong with you?” to patient-focused questions like, “What happened to you?” It is a practice known as trauma-informed care.

“This includes bringing in therapy dogs for staff to spend time with during the workday; anecdotally, our staff reported a reduction in stress and improvements in mood,” Ms. Rauscher says.

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

A visit with a friendly dog may be just what the doctor ordered for patients coming to the hospital for emergency care.

Patients in the emergency room who spent just 10 minutes with a trained therapy dog reported less pain, anxiety, and depression and improved well-being, researchers from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada found.

“The ER is an important community resource but also a scary place for most people,” James Stempien, MD, provincial department head of emergency medicine with the Saskatchewan Health Authority, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

“People tend to visit the ER on the worst day of their life, either for them or a loved one. Interacting with a therapy dog can make the ER visit a little calmer. We have also seen benefit for the staff that get to interact with the dogs as well,” he says.

“Thanks to our wonderful therapy dog volunteer teams, the cost is minimal and the result is priceless,” Dr. Stempien says.

The study, published in the journal PLOS One, builds on earlier “uncontrolled” studies by the Saskatchewan team.

Those studies showed that most ER patients wanted to visit with the therapy dog, if given a chance. After the encounter, patients reported feeling more comfortable, happier, and less distressed while waiting in the ER.

“A controlled trial was the natural next step,” says study investigator Colleen Dell, PhD, of One Health and Wellness at the University of Saskatchewan.

The study was done at the Royal University Hospital (RUH) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan -- the first emergency department in Canada to introduce therapy dogs to improve the experience of waiting patients.

Nearly 200 adults visiting the ER received either a 10-minute visit with a therapy dog and its handler in addition to usual care or just usual care.

The therapy dog visit had a positive impact on patient pain and related measures of anxiety, depression, and well-being.

“This did not occur in patients in the ER who did not visit with a therapy dog.

“This gives us confidence in the intervention,” Dr. Dell says.

Pain is a major reason that patients come to the ER, and interactions with a therapy dog may distract from that pain, the researchers believe.

The study results lend more evidence to research that shows animals can help in medical settings, says Kara Rauscher, a licensed social worker and interim director of behavioral health for Nashville CARES in Tennessee, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“There are clearly opportunities to replicate this study in other emergency departments to strengthen our understanding of the potential benefits of these programs,” she says.

Part of her work at Nashville CARES, an AIDS service organization, has been supporting care that moves away from questions like, “What’s wrong with you?” to patient-focused questions like, “What happened to you?” It is a practice known as trauma-informed care.

“This includes bringing in therapy dogs for staff to spend time with during the workday; anecdotally, our staff reported a reduction in stress and improvements in mood,” Ms. Rauscher says.

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

A visit with a friendly dog may be just what the doctor ordered for patients coming to the hospital for emergency care.

Patients in the emergency room who spent just 10 minutes with a trained therapy dog reported less pain, anxiety, and depression and improved well-being, researchers from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada found.

“The ER is an important community resource but also a scary place for most people,” James Stempien, MD, provincial department head of emergency medicine with the Saskatchewan Health Authority, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

“People tend to visit the ER on the worst day of their life, either for them or a loved one. Interacting with a therapy dog can make the ER visit a little calmer. We have also seen benefit for the staff that get to interact with the dogs as well,” he says.

“Thanks to our wonderful therapy dog volunteer teams, the cost is minimal and the result is priceless,” Dr. Stempien says.

The study, published in the journal PLOS One, builds on earlier “uncontrolled” studies by the Saskatchewan team.

Those studies showed that most ER patients wanted to visit with the therapy dog, if given a chance. After the encounter, patients reported feeling more comfortable, happier, and less distressed while waiting in the ER.

“A controlled trial was the natural next step,” says study investigator Colleen Dell, PhD, of One Health and Wellness at the University of Saskatchewan.

The study was done at the Royal University Hospital (RUH) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan -- the first emergency department in Canada to introduce therapy dogs to improve the experience of waiting patients.

Nearly 200 adults visiting the ER received either a 10-minute visit with a therapy dog and its handler in addition to usual care or just usual care.

The therapy dog visit had a positive impact on patient pain and related measures of anxiety, depression, and well-being.

“This did not occur in patients in the ER who did not visit with a therapy dog.

“This gives us confidence in the intervention,” Dr. Dell says.

Pain is a major reason that patients come to the ER, and interactions with a therapy dog may distract from that pain, the researchers believe.

The study results lend more evidence to research that shows animals can help in medical settings, says Kara Rauscher, a licensed social worker and interim director of behavioral health for Nashville CARES in Tennessee, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“There are clearly opportunities to replicate this study in other emergency departments to strengthen our understanding of the potential benefits of these programs,” she says.

Part of her work at Nashville CARES, an AIDS service organization, has been supporting care that moves away from questions like, “What’s wrong with you?” to patient-focused questions like, “What happened to you?” It is a practice known as trauma-informed care.

“This includes bringing in therapy dogs for staff to spend time with during the workday; anecdotally, our staff reported a reduction in stress and improvements in mood,” Ms. Rauscher says.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved donepezil transdermal system (Adlarity) for patients with mild, moderate, or severe Alzheimer’s disease, the manufacturer has announced.

Adlarity is the first and only once-weekly patch to continuously deliver consistent doses of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor through the skin, bypassing the digestive system and resulting in low likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects associated with oral donepezil, the company said in a press release.

Each patch delivers either 5 mg or 10 mg of donepezil daily for 7 days. After that, it is removed and a new patch is applied.

“The availability of a once-weekly patch formulation of donepezil has the potential to substantially benefit patients, caregivers, and health care providers,” Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix, said in the release.

“It offers effective, well-tolerated, and stable dosing for 7 days for patients who cannot take daily oral donepezil reliably because of impaired memory. It can also offer benefits for those patients who have diminished ability to swallow or have GI side effects associated with ingestion of oral donepezil,” Dr. Tariot added.

The FDA approved Adlarity through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

The company expects the donepezil transdermal patch to be available in early Fall 2022.

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

Colonoscopy performed with an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system decreased the adenoma miss rate (AMR) by roughly half, compared with standard colonoscopy without AI assistance in a randomized controlled trial.

“Such reduction is achieved by reducing the error in detecting subtle, small lesions that can be missed by the human eye,” lead investigator Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, with the gastroenterology unit at Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital in Rome, Italy, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 15 in Gastroenterology.
 

Tandem colonoscopy study

Investigators behind the study enrolled 230 adults undergoing colorectal cancer screening or surveillance at eight centers in Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

All participants underwent two same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without the GI-Genius (Medtronic) AI deep-learning CADe program in two different arms. In one arm, AI was followed by standard colonoscopy; in the other arm, standard colonoscopy was followed by AI.

The primary outcome of the study was AMR, defined as the number of histologically confirmed lesions detected during the second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected during both procedures.

Bowel preparation and quality of the examinations were similar for the study groups.

The AMR was significantly lower with AI-assisted colonoscopy first than non-AI first (15.5% vs. 32.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.62). This was largely due to a decrease in the miss rate of flat and small lesions in the proximal and distal colon.

Among adenomas less than 10 mm, the AMR with AI first was 16.5%, compared with 33.8% with standard non-AI colonoscopy first (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.61). The AMR was also significantly lower with AI first for adenomas less than or equal to 5 mm (15.9% vs. 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55). No differences in AMR were evident for adenomas measuring 6-9 mm or greater than or equal to 10 mm.

With regard to morphology, the miss rate of non-polypoid lesions was significantly lower with AI first (16.8% vs. 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.45), and there was a numerical decrease in the miss rate of polypoid lesions with AI that did not reach statistical significance.

The use of AI was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the false negative rate (6.8% vs. 29.6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67).

The authors say their findings offer indirect support to the higher adenoma detection rate demonstrated with this CADe system in two previous randomized controlled trials.
 

More high-quality evidence for AI-assisted colonoscopy

“This is a very well-executed study, and it does show a reduced miss rate with AI during colonoscopy,” Douglas Rex, MD, director of endoscopy at Indiana University Hospital in Indianapolis, said in an interview.

“AI seems destined to contribute importantly to colonoscopy,” added Dr. Rex, who was not involved in the study.

Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, gastroenterologist with the University of Chicago Medical Center, who also was not involved in the study, said he is not surprised by these latest findings on AI-assisted colonoscopy.

This study and others have provided “high-quality evidence that AI-aided colonoscopy increases the adenoma detection rate and decreases the adenoma miss rate, so I consider that it would soon become standard of care to use AI-aided colonoscopy in clinical practice,” Dr. Sakuraba told this news organization.

Dr. Rex noted that this specific AI program is a “detection program, so-called CADe, but there will be programs for the prediction of histology (CADx) and programs that assess how carefully the colon is being examined by the doctor. All of these show promise for reducing operator dependence, which is very problematic in colonoscopy.”

Dr. Rex emphasized that AI programs are “not a threat to endoscopists, as there is still an enormous skill set required to effectively examine the colon and clear it of neoplasia.”

He cautioned that currently, the cost of the CADe programs is significant but is likely to come down as more vendors get U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for their programs.

The study was funded by Cosmo Artificial Intelligence-AI. Dr. Hassan has relationships with Medtronic and Fujfilm. Dr. Rex and Dr. Sakuraba have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 3/16/22.

Colonoscopy performed with an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system decreased the adenoma miss rate (AMR) by roughly half, compared with standard colonoscopy without AI assistance in a randomized controlled trial.

“Such reduction is achieved by reducing the error in detecting subtle, small lesions that can be missed by the human eye,” lead investigator Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, with the gastroenterology unit at Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital in Rome, Italy, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 15 in Gastroenterology.
 

Tandem colonoscopy study

Investigators behind the study enrolled 230 adults undergoing colorectal cancer screening or surveillance at eight centers in Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

All participants underwent two same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without the GI-Genius (Medtronic) AI deep-learning CADe program in two different arms. In one arm, AI was followed by standard colonoscopy; in the other arm, standard colonoscopy was followed by AI.

The primary outcome of the study was AMR, defined as the number of histologically confirmed lesions detected during the second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected during both procedures.

Bowel preparation and quality of the examinations were similar for the study groups.

The AMR was significantly lower with AI-assisted colonoscopy first than non-AI first (15.5% vs. 32.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.62). This was largely due to a decrease in the miss rate of flat and small lesions in the proximal and distal colon.

Among adenomas less than 10 mm, the AMR with AI first was 16.5%, compared with 33.8% with standard non-AI colonoscopy first (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.61). The AMR was also significantly lower with AI first for adenomas less than or equal to 5 mm (15.9% vs. 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55). No differences in AMR were evident for adenomas measuring 6-9 mm or greater than or equal to 10 mm.

With regard to morphology, the miss rate of non-polypoid lesions was significantly lower with AI first (16.8% vs. 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.45), and there was a numerical decrease in the miss rate of polypoid lesions with AI that did not reach statistical significance.

The use of AI was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the false negative rate (6.8% vs. 29.6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67).

The authors say their findings offer indirect support to the higher adenoma detection rate demonstrated with this CADe system in two previous randomized controlled trials.
 

More high-quality evidence for AI-assisted colonoscopy

“This is a very well-executed study, and it does show a reduced miss rate with AI during colonoscopy,” Douglas Rex, MD, director of endoscopy at Indiana University Hospital in Indianapolis, said in an interview.

“AI seems destined to contribute importantly to colonoscopy,” added Dr. Rex, who was not involved in the study.

Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, gastroenterologist with the University of Chicago Medical Center, who also was not involved in the study, said he is not surprised by these latest findings on AI-assisted colonoscopy.

This study and others have provided “high-quality evidence that AI-aided colonoscopy increases the adenoma detection rate and decreases the adenoma miss rate, so I consider that it would soon become standard of care to use AI-aided colonoscopy in clinical practice,” Dr. Sakuraba told this news organization.

Dr. Rex noted that this specific AI program is a “detection program, so-called CADe, but there will be programs for the prediction of histology (CADx) and programs that assess how carefully the colon is being examined by the doctor. All of these show promise for reducing operator dependence, which is very problematic in colonoscopy.”

Dr. Rex emphasized that AI programs are “not a threat to endoscopists, as there is still an enormous skill set required to effectively examine the colon and clear it of neoplasia.”

He cautioned that currently, the cost of the CADe programs is significant but is likely to come down as more vendors get U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for their programs.

The study was funded by Cosmo Artificial Intelligence-AI. Dr. Hassan has relationships with Medtronic and Fujfilm. Dr. Rex and Dr. Sakuraba have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 3/16/22.

Colonoscopy performed with an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system decreased the adenoma miss rate (AMR) by roughly half, compared with standard colonoscopy without AI assistance in a randomized controlled trial.

“Such reduction is achieved by reducing the error in detecting subtle, small lesions that can be missed by the human eye,” lead investigator Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, with the gastroenterology unit at Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital in Rome, Italy, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 15 in Gastroenterology.
 

Tandem colonoscopy study

Investigators behind the study enrolled 230 adults undergoing colorectal cancer screening or surveillance at eight centers in Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

All participants underwent two same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without the GI-Genius (Medtronic) AI deep-learning CADe program in two different arms. In one arm, AI was followed by standard colonoscopy; in the other arm, standard colonoscopy was followed by AI.

The primary outcome of the study was AMR, defined as the number of histologically confirmed lesions detected during the second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected during both procedures.

Bowel preparation and quality of the examinations were similar for the study groups.

The AMR was significantly lower with AI-assisted colonoscopy first than non-AI first (15.5% vs. 32.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.62). This was largely due to a decrease in the miss rate of flat and small lesions in the proximal and distal colon.

Among adenomas less than 10 mm, the AMR with AI first was 16.5%, compared with 33.8% with standard non-AI colonoscopy first (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.61). The AMR was also significantly lower with AI first for adenomas less than or equal to 5 mm (15.9% vs. 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55). No differences in AMR were evident for adenomas measuring 6-9 mm or greater than or equal to 10 mm.

With regard to morphology, the miss rate of non-polypoid lesions was significantly lower with AI first (16.8% vs. 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.45), and there was a numerical decrease in the miss rate of polypoid lesions with AI that did not reach statistical significance.

The use of AI was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the false negative rate (6.8% vs. 29.6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67).

The authors say their findings offer indirect support to the higher adenoma detection rate demonstrated with this CADe system in two previous randomized controlled trials.
 

More high-quality evidence for AI-assisted colonoscopy

“This is a very well-executed study, and it does show a reduced miss rate with AI during colonoscopy,” Douglas Rex, MD, director of endoscopy at Indiana University Hospital in Indianapolis, said in an interview.

“AI seems destined to contribute importantly to colonoscopy,” added Dr. Rex, who was not involved in the study.

Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, gastroenterologist with the University of Chicago Medical Center, who also was not involved in the study, said he is not surprised by these latest findings on AI-assisted colonoscopy.

This study and others have provided “high-quality evidence that AI-aided colonoscopy increases the adenoma detection rate and decreases the adenoma miss rate, so I consider that it would soon become standard of care to use AI-aided colonoscopy in clinical practice,” Dr. Sakuraba told this news organization.

Dr. Rex noted that this specific AI program is a “detection program, so-called CADe, but there will be programs for the prediction of histology (CADx) and programs that assess how carefully the colon is being examined by the doctor. All of these show promise for reducing operator dependence, which is very problematic in colonoscopy.”

Dr. Rex emphasized that AI programs are “not a threat to endoscopists, as there is still an enormous skill set required to effectively examine the colon and clear it of neoplasia.”

He cautioned that currently, the cost of the CADe programs is significant but is likely to come down as more vendors get U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for their programs.

The study was funded by Cosmo Artificial Intelligence-AI. Dr. Hassan has relationships with Medtronic and Fujfilm. Dr. Rex and Dr. Sakuraba have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 3/16/22.

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

Their study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.

According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.

The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.

The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.

Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.

“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.

“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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