MDedge Endocrinology

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.

The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).

In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
 

Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?

“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”

The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.

The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.

The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.

At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).

Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.

The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
 

1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias

A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.

The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.

A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.

The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.

In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Is the gender-affirmative treatment approach an example of “medicine continuing on its progressive march of improving human life” or “a manifestation of dangerous medicine that ... will cause more harm than benefit to vulnerable youths?” wonders an Australian psychiatrist in a newly published letter that addresses the controversial procedure of masculinizing chest surgery – a double mastectomy – in young people with gender dysphoria (GD).

Alison Clayton, MBBS, explores the evidence for masculinizing chest surgery and looks back at examples of “dangerous medicine” in the past century while looking forward, wondering how future medics will retrospectively view gender affirmative treatment, especially so-called “top” or masculinizing chest surgery, which is in actual fact a double mastectomy, in a letter published Nov. 22 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

“It is surprising that clinicians and researchers claim chest surgery for GD youth is an evidence-based intervention, rather than acknowledging it is an experimental treatment that requires more rigorous and human research ethics committee [HREC] approved research,” she writes.

“The medical profession needs to consider whether, in its championing of the gender-affirmative approach for GD youth, it is also acting brashly and making mistakes that will negatively impact some young people for the rest of their lives,” she continues.

Ms. Clayton, after many years of experience as a psychiatrist, has recently returned to postgraduate research into the history of 20th-century psychiatry at the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne.

Meanwhile, the authors of a viewpoint published online Dec. 1 in JAMA Surgery, agree with Ms. Clayton on the issue of a lack of long-term studies on which to base decisions, particularly when it comes to insurance coverage for gender surgeries in the United States.  

Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu, MD, and colleagues recommend use of the coverage with evidence development (CED) approach, which would, they say, provide a “rigorous evidence base for gender-affirming interventions and surgery while simultaneously allowing access and provisional coverage for these services.”
 

Threefold increase in gender-affirming surgeries in past decade

There has been a threefold rise in the rate of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States in the past decade, which can be attributed to increased recognition of gender dysphoria, decreasing social stigma toward these individuals, greater clinical experience, and expanding insurance coverage, according to Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu, of the department of urology, NYU School of Medicine, and coauthors.

Ms. Clayton meanwhile notes that of the increasing number of adolescents being referred for treatment for gender dysphoria in the Western world, most were born female and many have “a history of psychiatric illness or neurodevelopmental disorders.”

Many of these youngsters also show a “high demand” for surgical removal of breasts, she adds, noting that this operation is being undertaken as routine treatment in patients as young as 13, with some clinicians arguing that “this surgery is an evidence-based intervention that improves mental health outcomes, and that it is discriminatory for it not to be available.”

She also notes that “chest dysphoria” is “a recently created term meaning discomfort with one’s breasts.” The term “breast” is therefore largely absent in publications talking about this surgery as it “may cause distress for transgender males,” to quote one source, Ms. Clayton says, and “this seems part of a broader pattern of removing this term from clinical language,” according to another article on the subject.

Ms. Clayton also says, “There are only a handful of published studies focusing on the potential benefits of masculinizing chest surgery,” and notes that these mostly report on surgery for individuals younger than 21 years old.
 

Significant methodological flaws in existing research

One study of 14 postsurgical youth (nine of whom were under 18 years) found that “all reported high aesthetic satisfaction and most self-reported low complication rates and improvement in mood.”

Another cross-sectional retrospective survey looked at 68 postsurgical transmasculine youth (72% of the eligible postsurgical population); 49% had surgery when younger than age 18, with the youngest being age 13 and the oldest age 24. At the time of the survey, only 14% of participants were more than 2 years postsurgery. The postsurgical participants were found to have reduced chest dysphoria (the outcome) compared with a convenience and nonmatched comparison sample of nonsurgical transmasculine youth.

And a 2021 qualitative study of 30 transmale youth – about half of whom had undergone chest surgery – concluded that the postsurgical cohort experienced “tremendous” benefits in chest dysphoria and a range of psychological outcomes.

On this particular study, Ms. Clayton notes that “in my opinion, they did not provide enough detail for the reader to make an informed judgment regarding this latter claim.”

She goes on to discuss genital surgery, sometimes called full gender-affirming surgery (or “bottom surgery”), and says proponents of these operations point out that the main objections to them in minors is to “surgical sterilization, and people get super worked up about that ... it is a barrier we have to overcome, and I think we are going to.”

Ms. Clayton asserts that it seems “this barrier is already being overcome, as it has been reported that in the United States, genital surgery is being undertaken on gender dysphoric minors as young as 15 years old.”

Reflecting on the available evidence, Ms. Clayton highlights the significant methodological flaws that limit the extent to which surgery can be linked to short-term improved mental health outcomes and adds that information on long-term outcomes and rates of regret is unavailable.

She also asserts that the research fails to assess “a role for psychological interventions which could be utilized, as a least-harm intervention, until maturity is reached.”
 

Historical examples of experimental medicine

Ms. Clayton goes on to draw parallels with experimental medicine performed on homosexuals in the 20th century, highlighting the medical and surgical interventions, which included metrazol convulsive therapy, chemical castration with estrogens, surgical castration, clitoridectomy, brain operations, and aversive electrotherapy.

She also refers to the historical practice of hormonal treatment for “tall girls” and “short boys” between the 1960s and 1980s. Hormones were given to young people who did not have any medical reason underpinning their stature but were distressed, and society considered their height to have a negative social impact.

“With the encouragement of physicians and school nurses, enthusiastic media promotion, and pharmaceutical companies’ advertising, parents sought hormonal interventions,” she writes, adding that, at the time the hormones were considered safe, but long-term adverse effects emerged, including impaired fertility and increased risk of cancers.

“This seems another part of the story of medicine acting to reinforce society’s sex stereotypes, and for some patients it came at disastrous personal cost,” writes Ms. Clayton.

The gender-affirming approach is based on endorsing the adolescent’s stated gender identity with minimal questioning and “that they should be supported to undertake social transition, medical transition, masculinizing chest surgery, and, some also argue, genital surgery,” she writes.

Objectors to this approach pinpoint the “limited and low-quality evidence base for the benefits” but also “the irreversible and long-term adverse impacts of these treatments on fertility and sexual function, as well as on bone, brain, and cardiovascular functioning.”
 

Current studies of gender-affirming surgeries lack standardization

In their viewpoint, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and colleagues state that use of a CED would not only help provide an evidence base but would also ensure better-informed policy access and coverage decisions to help standardize approaches to gender surgery in the United States.

Currently, they note, “Studies examining the mental health benefit for patients undergoing gender-affirming surgeries include measures that lack standardization, evaluate different interventions (that is, surgeries are rarely done with concurrent hormone administration), include dissimilar patient populations, and use different study designs.”

This difference in study design leads to variation in reported outcomes. Although many studies have shown benefit, others report that patients have unrealistic expectations or experience regret, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and coauthors conclude.

CED provides an option that would enable informed decisions. “It allows the deliberate use of innovative therapies, explicit integration of transgender and nonbinary patient input, and ongoing systematic evaluation aimed to identify specific patient groups who would or would not benefit from their use.”

This leads back to Ms. Clayton’s central question around whether the gender-affirmative approach is a medical advance or dangerous medicine.

“Why are these experimental interventions, with inherent risks and scarce, low-quality evidence for benefits being implemented outside HREC-regulated clinical trial settings?’” she wonders.

Ms. Clayton has declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Is the gender-affirmative treatment approach an example of “medicine continuing on its progressive march of improving human life” or “a manifestation of dangerous medicine that ... will cause more harm than benefit to vulnerable youths?” wonders an Australian psychiatrist in a newly published letter that addresses the controversial procedure of masculinizing chest surgery – a double mastectomy – in young people with gender dysphoria (GD).

Alison Clayton, MBBS, explores the evidence for masculinizing chest surgery and looks back at examples of “dangerous medicine” in the past century while looking forward, wondering how future medics will retrospectively view gender affirmative treatment, especially so-called “top” or masculinizing chest surgery, which is in actual fact a double mastectomy, in a letter published Nov. 22 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

“It is surprising that clinicians and researchers claim chest surgery for GD youth is an evidence-based intervention, rather than acknowledging it is an experimental treatment that requires more rigorous and human research ethics committee [HREC] approved research,” she writes.

“The medical profession needs to consider whether, in its championing of the gender-affirmative approach for GD youth, it is also acting brashly and making mistakes that will negatively impact some young people for the rest of their lives,” she continues.

Ms. Clayton, after many years of experience as a psychiatrist, has recently returned to postgraduate research into the history of 20th-century psychiatry at the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne.

Meanwhile, the authors of a viewpoint published online Dec. 1 in JAMA Surgery, agree with Ms. Clayton on the issue of a lack of long-term studies on which to base decisions, particularly when it comes to insurance coverage for gender surgeries in the United States.  

Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu, MD, and colleagues recommend use of the coverage with evidence development (CED) approach, which would, they say, provide a “rigorous evidence base for gender-affirming interventions and surgery while simultaneously allowing access and provisional coverage for these services.”
 

Threefold increase in gender-affirming surgeries in past decade

There has been a threefold rise in the rate of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States in the past decade, which can be attributed to increased recognition of gender dysphoria, decreasing social stigma toward these individuals, greater clinical experience, and expanding insurance coverage, according to Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu, of the department of urology, NYU School of Medicine, and coauthors.

Ms. Clayton meanwhile notes that of the increasing number of adolescents being referred for treatment for gender dysphoria in the Western world, most were born female and many have “a history of psychiatric illness or neurodevelopmental disorders.”

Many of these youngsters also show a “high demand” for surgical removal of breasts, she adds, noting that this operation is being undertaken as routine treatment in patients as young as 13, with some clinicians arguing that “this surgery is an evidence-based intervention that improves mental health outcomes, and that it is discriminatory for it not to be available.”

She also notes that “chest dysphoria” is “a recently created term meaning discomfort with one’s breasts.” The term “breast” is therefore largely absent in publications talking about this surgery as it “may cause distress for transgender males,” to quote one source, Ms. Clayton says, and “this seems part of a broader pattern of removing this term from clinical language,” according to another article on the subject.

Ms. Clayton also says, “There are only a handful of published studies focusing on the potential benefits of masculinizing chest surgery,” and notes that these mostly report on surgery for individuals younger than 21 years old.
 

Significant methodological flaws in existing research

One study of 14 postsurgical youth (nine of whom were under 18 years) found that “all reported high aesthetic satisfaction and most self-reported low complication rates and improvement in mood.”

Another cross-sectional retrospective survey looked at 68 postsurgical transmasculine youth (72% of the eligible postsurgical population); 49% had surgery when younger than age 18, with the youngest being age 13 and the oldest age 24. At the time of the survey, only 14% of participants were more than 2 years postsurgery. The postsurgical participants were found to have reduced chest dysphoria (the outcome) compared with a convenience and nonmatched comparison sample of nonsurgical transmasculine youth.

And a 2021 qualitative study of 30 transmale youth – about half of whom had undergone chest surgery – concluded that the postsurgical cohort experienced “tremendous” benefits in chest dysphoria and a range of psychological outcomes.

On this particular study, Ms. Clayton notes that “in my opinion, they did not provide enough detail for the reader to make an informed judgment regarding this latter claim.”

She goes on to discuss genital surgery, sometimes called full gender-affirming surgery (or “bottom surgery”), and says proponents of these operations point out that the main objections to them in minors is to “surgical sterilization, and people get super worked up about that ... it is a barrier we have to overcome, and I think we are going to.”

Ms. Clayton asserts that it seems “this barrier is already being overcome, as it has been reported that in the United States, genital surgery is being undertaken on gender dysphoric minors as young as 15 years old.”

Reflecting on the available evidence, Ms. Clayton highlights the significant methodological flaws that limit the extent to which surgery can be linked to short-term improved mental health outcomes and adds that information on long-term outcomes and rates of regret is unavailable.

She also asserts that the research fails to assess “a role for psychological interventions which could be utilized, as a least-harm intervention, until maturity is reached.”
 

Historical examples of experimental medicine

Ms. Clayton goes on to draw parallels with experimental medicine performed on homosexuals in the 20th century, highlighting the medical and surgical interventions, which included metrazol convulsive therapy, chemical castration with estrogens, surgical castration, clitoridectomy, brain operations, and aversive electrotherapy.

She also refers to the historical practice of hormonal treatment for “tall girls” and “short boys” between the 1960s and 1980s. Hormones were given to young people who did not have any medical reason underpinning their stature but were distressed, and society considered their height to have a negative social impact.

“With the encouragement of physicians and school nurses, enthusiastic media promotion, and pharmaceutical companies’ advertising, parents sought hormonal interventions,” she writes, adding that, at the time the hormones were considered safe, but long-term adverse effects emerged, including impaired fertility and increased risk of cancers.

“This seems another part of the story of medicine acting to reinforce society’s sex stereotypes, and for some patients it came at disastrous personal cost,” writes Ms. Clayton.

The gender-affirming approach is based on endorsing the adolescent’s stated gender identity with minimal questioning and “that they should be supported to undertake social transition, medical transition, masculinizing chest surgery, and, some also argue, genital surgery,” she writes.

Objectors to this approach pinpoint the “limited and low-quality evidence base for the benefits” but also “the irreversible and long-term adverse impacts of these treatments on fertility and sexual function, as well as on bone, brain, and cardiovascular functioning.”
 

Current studies of gender-affirming surgeries lack standardization

In their viewpoint, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and colleagues state that use of a CED would not only help provide an evidence base but would also ensure better-informed policy access and coverage decisions to help standardize approaches to gender surgery in the United States.

Currently, they note, “Studies examining the mental health benefit for patients undergoing gender-affirming surgeries include measures that lack standardization, evaluate different interventions (that is, surgeries are rarely done with concurrent hormone administration), include dissimilar patient populations, and use different study designs.”

This difference in study design leads to variation in reported outcomes. Although many studies have shown benefit, others report that patients have unrealistic expectations or experience regret, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and coauthors conclude.

CED provides an option that would enable informed decisions. “It allows the deliberate use of innovative therapies, explicit integration of transgender and nonbinary patient input, and ongoing systematic evaluation aimed to identify specific patient groups who would or would not benefit from their use.”

This leads back to Ms. Clayton’s central question around whether the gender-affirmative approach is a medical advance or dangerous medicine.

“Why are these experimental interventions, with inherent risks and scarce, low-quality evidence for benefits being implemented outside HREC-regulated clinical trial settings?’” she wonders.

Ms. Clayton has declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Is the gender-affirmative treatment approach an example of “medicine continuing on its progressive march of improving human life” or “a manifestation of dangerous medicine that ... will cause more harm than benefit to vulnerable youths?” wonders an Australian psychiatrist in a newly published letter that addresses the controversial procedure of masculinizing chest surgery – a double mastectomy – in young people with gender dysphoria (GD).

Alison Clayton, MBBS, explores the evidence for masculinizing chest surgery and looks back at examples of “dangerous medicine” in the past century while looking forward, wondering how future medics will retrospectively view gender affirmative treatment, especially so-called “top” or masculinizing chest surgery, which is in actual fact a double mastectomy, in a letter published Nov. 22 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

“It is surprising that clinicians and researchers claim chest surgery for GD youth is an evidence-based intervention, rather than acknowledging it is an experimental treatment that requires more rigorous and human research ethics committee [HREC] approved research,” she writes.

“The medical profession needs to consider whether, in its championing of the gender-affirmative approach for GD youth, it is also acting brashly and making mistakes that will negatively impact some young people for the rest of their lives,” she continues.

Ms. Clayton, after many years of experience as a psychiatrist, has recently returned to postgraduate research into the history of 20th-century psychiatry at the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne.

Meanwhile, the authors of a viewpoint published online Dec. 1 in JAMA Surgery, agree with Ms. Clayton on the issue of a lack of long-term studies on which to base decisions, particularly when it comes to insurance coverage for gender surgeries in the United States.  

Nnenaya Agochukwu-Mmonu, MD, and colleagues recommend use of the coverage with evidence development (CED) approach, which would, they say, provide a “rigorous evidence base for gender-affirming interventions and surgery while simultaneously allowing access and provisional coverage for these services.”
 

Threefold increase in gender-affirming surgeries in past decade

There has been a threefold rise in the rate of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States in the past decade, which can be attributed to increased recognition of gender dysphoria, decreasing social stigma toward these individuals, greater clinical experience, and expanding insurance coverage, according to Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu, of the department of urology, NYU School of Medicine, and coauthors.

Ms. Clayton meanwhile notes that of the increasing number of adolescents being referred for treatment for gender dysphoria in the Western world, most were born female and many have “a history of psychiatric illness or neurodevelopmental disorders.”

Many of these youngsters also show a “high demand” for surgical removal of breasts, she adds, noting that this operation is being undertaken as routine treatment in patients as young as 13, with some clinicians arguing that “this surgery is an evidence-based intervention that improves mental health outcomes, and that it is discriminatory for it not to be available.”

She also notes that “chest dysphoria” is “a recently created term meaning discomfort with one’s breasts.” The term “breast” is therefore largely absent in publications talking about this surgery as it “may cause distress for transgender males,” to quote one source, Ms. Clayton says, and “this seems part of a broader pattern of removing this term from clinical language,” according to another article on the subject.

Ms. Clayton also says, “There are only a handful of published studies focusing on the potential benefits of masculinizing chest surgery,” and notes that these mostly report on surgery for individuals younger than 21 years old.
 

Significant methodological flaws in existing research

One study of 14 postsurgical youth (nine of whom were under 18 years) found that “all reported high aesthetic satisfaction and most self-reported low complication rates and improvement in mood.”

Another cross-sectional retrospective survey looked at 68 postsurgical transmasculine youth (72% of the eligible postsurgical population); 49% had surgery when younger than age 18, with the youngest being age 13 and the oldest age 24. At the time of the survey, only 14% of participants were more than 2 years postsurgery. The postsurgical participants were found to have reduced chest dysphoria (the outcome) compared with a convenience and nonmatched comparison sample of nonsurgical transmasculine youth.

And a 2021 qualitative study of 30 transmale youth – about half of whom had undergone chest surgery – concluded that the postsurgical cohort experienced “tremendous” benefits in chest dysphoria and a range of psychological outcomes.

On this particular study, Ms. Clayton notes that “in my opinion, they did not provide enough detail for the reader to make an informed judgment regarding this latter claim.”

She goes on to discuss genital surgery, sometimes called full gender-affirming surgery (or “bottom surgery”), and says proponents of these operations point out that the main objections to them in minors is to “surgical sterilization, and people get super worked up about that ... it is a barrier we have to overcome, and I think we are going to.”

Ms. Clayton asserts that it seems “this barrier is already being overcome, as it has been reported that in the United States, genital surgery is being undertaken on gender dysphoric minors as young as 15 years old.”

Reflecting on the available evidence, Ms. Clayton highlights the significant methodological flaws that limit the extent to which surgery can be linked to short-term improved mental health outcomes and adds that information on long-term outcomes and rates of regret is unavailable.

She also asserts that the research fails to assess “a role for psychological interventions which could be utilized, as a least-harm intervention, until maturity is reached.”
 

Historical examples of experimental medicine

Ms. Clayton goes on to draw parallels with experimental medicine performed on homosexuals in the 20th century, highlighting the medical and surgical interventions, which included metrazol convulsive therapy, chemical castration with estrogens, surgical castration, clitoridectomy, brain operations, and aversive electrotherapy.

She also refers to the historical practice of hormonal treatment for “tall girls” and “short boys” between the 1960s and 1980s. Hormones were given to young people who did not have any medical reason underpinning their stature but were distressed, and society considered their height to have a negative social impact.

“With the encouragement of physicians and school nurses, enthusiastic media promotion, and pharmaceutical companies’ advertising, parents sought hormonal interventions,” she writes, adding that, at the time the hormones were considered safe, but long-term adverse effects emerged, including impaired fertility and increased risk of cancers.

“This seems another part of the story of medicine acting to reinforce society’s sex stereotypes, and for some patients it came at disastrous personal cost,” writes Ms. Clayton.

The gender-affirming approach is based on endorsing the adolescent’s stated gender identity with minimal questioning and “that they should be supported to undertake social transition, medical transition, masculinizing chest surgery, and, some also argue, genital surgery,” she writes.

Objectors to this approach pinpoint the “limited and low-quality evidence base for the benefits” but also “the irreversible and long-term adverse impacts of these treatments on fertility and sexual function, as well as on bone, brain, and cardiovascular functioning.”
 

Current studies of gender-affirming surgeries lack standardization

In their viewpoint, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and colleagues state that use of a CED would not only help provide an evidence base but would also ensure better-informed policy access and coverage decisions to help standardize approaches to gender surgery in the United States.

Currently, they note, “Studies examining the mental health benefit for patients undergoing gender-affirming surgeries include measures that lack standardization, evaluate different interventions (that is, surgeries are rarely done with concurrent hormone administration), include dissimilar patient populations, and use different study designs.”

This difference in study design leads to variation in reported outcomes. Although many studies have shown benefit, others report that patients have unrealistic expectations or experience regret, Dr. Agochukwu-Mmonu and coauthors conclude.

CED provides an option that would enable informed decisions. “It allows the deliberate use of innovative therapies, explicit integration of transgender and nonbinary patient input, and ongoing systematic evaluation aimed to identify specific patient groups who would or would not benefit from their use.”

This leads back to Ms. Clayton’s central question around whether the gender-affirmative approach is a medical advance or dangerous medicine.

“Why are these experimental interventions, with inherent risks and scarce, low-quality evidence for benefits being implemented outside HREC-regulated clinical trial settings?’” she wonders.

Ms. Clayton has declared no conflicts of interest.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs) have been linked to increased background enhancement on breast MRI, according to research presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2021 annual meeting.

About 10.4% of women 15-49 years of age who use contraception have an IUD or contraceptive implant, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Unlike oral or transdermal hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy, levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs release a small amount of the hormone directly into the uterus and are thought to have a much more localized effect, Luisa Huck, MD, the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

But women with IUDs have long reported adverse effects associated with other hormonal medication. “In the past, some women reported depression, headaches, sleep disorders, and panic attacks,” noted Dr. Huck, a radiology resident at RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Christiane Kuhl, MD, chief of the department of radiology at RWTH Aachen University and senior author of the research, had also observed that women with hormonal IUDs often have increased background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced MRI. BPE “has been established as a sensitive marker of hormonal stimulation of breast,” the study authors wrote, and previous studies have shown that women using hormonal medications have higher BPE on breast MRIs.

To better understand whether IUDs can increase BPE, Dr. Huck and colleagues used the hospital database to search for premenopausal women who had undergone breast MRIs for screening between January 2014 and July 2020. To be included, women had to have had at least two scans: one with and one without an IUD in place, with the scan conducted at least 4 weeks after IUD placement or removal. All women in the study had no history of breast cancer or hormone or antihormone intake.

The study involved 48 women with an average age of 45 years and a median of 27 months between the two scans. Forty-six of the women had the Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing IUD and two had the Jaydess IUD. To account for hormone variations between patients, the researchers used each patient as their own reference point. To control for age-related effects, 25 women had their first MRI without an IUD and their second scan with an IUD in place. The second group of 23 women underwent their first MRI with an IUD and had it removed before the second scan.

Hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging.

For 23 women in the study, background enhancement was higher on scans with the IUD than without (P < .001). For 24 women, there was no change in BPE with or without an IUD, and one woman had lower BPE with an IUD than without.

“It is very interesting and relevant to practice to consider that the presence of an intrauterine device would have potential impact on the enhancement we see in the breast on MRI imaging,” Samantha Heller, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology at New York University, said in an interview.

However, the study used BPE as a measure for hormonal shifts, and “hormonal effects on breast enhancement are very complex, and hormonal stimulation is not always predictably correlated with changes on MRI imaging,” she noted. BPE on MRI can fluctuate, so testing actual hormone levels in patients with elevated BPE could be helpful to identify hormonal shifts, she added. It is also important to understand why half of the women in the study showed no variation in BPE, she said.

The study findings are not very surprising, considering that it is known that low levels of progesterone from IUDs circulate in the blood stream, Frances Casey, MD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said in an interview. They do not suggest that there should be any changes to IUD guidelines, she added.

However, “the study findings raise the question as to whether IUD status should be documented as a matter of course prior to performing breast MRI,” said Dr. Heller. “It is standard to document the timing of a woman’s menstrual cycle, as well as to note any hormone suppression or replacement therapy. This is in part so that the radiologist may understand the etiology of any observed variation in background enhancement,” she explained.

Although increased enhancement on MRI has sometimes been linked to higher chances of recommendations for additional imaging or biopsies, she noted, “more work would be needed to understand the impact – if any – of an IUD on breast MRI recommendations due to enhancement changes.”

Dr. Huck, Dr. Heller, and Dr. Casey disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

An antiviral pill from Merck may help some high-risk patients survive a COVID-19 infection or help them stay out of the hospital, even though the risks of taking the drug aren’t yet fully known, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.

The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.

The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.

If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.

The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.

“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.

Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.

“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.

Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.

“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.

Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.

But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.

In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.

On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.

The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.

“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.

“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.

Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.

There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.

Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.

Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.

Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.

Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.

The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.

But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.

Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.

So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.

Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.

“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.

“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.

He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.

“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.

Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.

“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.

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

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.

The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.

In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.

Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.

Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.

Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”

Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.

“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.

“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.

But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”

In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.

Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.

In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.

LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.

There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”

These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”

The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Merck’s antiviral pill for COVID-19, molnupiravir, appears to be far less effective than early results from the clinical trial first suggested.

According to an analysis by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, the experimental pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 by about 30%, compared to a placebo, and the pill showed no benefit for people with antibodies against COVID-19 from prior infection.

The updated analysis showed 48 hospitalizations or deaths among study participants who were randomly assigned to take the antiviral drug, compared to 68 among those who took a placebo.

Those results come from the full set of 1,433 patients who were randomized in the clinical trial, which just became available last week.

Initial results from the first 775 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, which were issued in a company news release in October, had said the drug cut the risk of hospitalization or death for patients at high risk of severe disease by about 50%.

Merck has been producing millions of doses of molnupiravir, which is the first antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 infections. The United Kingdom’s drug regulator authorized use of the medication in early November. The company said it expected to distribute the medication globally by the end of 2021.

In October, two Indian drug companies halted late-stage clinical trials of a generic version of molnupiravir after the studies failed to find any benefit to patients with moderate COVID-19. Trials in patients with milder symptoms are still ongoing.

On Nov. 27, the New England Journal of Medicine postponed its planned early release of the molnupiravir study results, citing “new information.”

The medication is designed to be given as four pills taken every 12 hours for 5 days. It’s most effective when taken within the first few days of new symptoms, something that requires convenient and affordable testing.

The new results seem to put molnupiravir far below the effectiveness of existing treatments.

The infused monoclonal antibody cocktail REGEN-COV, which the FDA has already authorized for emergency use, is about 85% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in patients who are at risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and it appears to be just as effective in people who already have antibodies against COVID-19, which is why it is being given to both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the FDA said.

In early November, Pfizer said its experimental antiviral pill Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%.

In briefing documents posted ahead of an advisory committee meeting Nov. 30, the FDA highlights other potential safety issues with the Merck drug, which works by causing the virus to make mistakes as it copies itself, eventually causing the virus to mutate itself to death.

The agency has asked the advisory committee to weigh in on the right patient population for the drug: Should pregnant women get it? Could the drug harm a developing fetus?

Should vaccinated people with breakthrough infections get it? Would it work for them? People with reduced immune function are more likely to get a breakthrough infection. They’re also more likely to shed virus for a longer period of time, making them perfect incubators for variants. What could happen if we give this type of patient a drug that increases mutations?

And what about mutations caused by the medication? Could they increase the potential for more variants? The agency concluded the risk of this happening was low.

In animal studies, the drug impacted bone formation. For this reason, the agency has agreed with the drug company that molnupiravir should not be given to anyone under the age of 18.

Aside from these concerns, the FDA says there were no major safety issues among people who took part in the clinical trial, though they acknowledge that number is small.

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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

Ramy Sedhom, MD, a medical oncologist and a palliative care physician at Penn Medicine Princeton Health in Plainsboro, N.J., will always wonder if prior authorization refusals led to his patient’s death.

The patient had advanced gastric cancer and the insurer initially denied a PET scan to rule out metastatic disease. When the scan was eventually allowed, it revealed that the cancer had spread.

Standard treatment would have been difficult for the patient, an older individual with comorbidities. But Dr. Sedhom knew that a European study had reported equal efficacy and fewer side effects with a reduced chemotherapy regimen, and he thought that was the best approach in this situation.

The insurer disagreed with Dr. Sedhom’s decision and, while the two argued, the patient’s symptoms worsened. He was admitted to the hospital, where he experienced a decline in function, common for older patients. “Long story short, he was never able to seek treatment and then transitioned to hospice,” Dr. Sedhom said. “It was one of those situations where there was a 3- to 4-week delay in what should have been standard care.”

That course of events is not an outlier but everyday life for physicians trying to navigate insurers’ prior authorization rules before they can treat their patients. Nearly 4 years after major organizations — American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and others — signed a consensus statement agreeing to improve the prior authorization process, physicians say little progress has been made.

Indeed, 83% of physicians say that the number of prior authorizations required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last 5 years, according to survey results released earlier this year.

“It’s decidedly worse — there’s no question about it,” said Andrew R. Spector, MD, a neurologist and sleep medicine specialist at Duke Health in Durham, N.C. “Drugs that I used to get without prior authorizations now require them.”

When Vignesh I. Doraiswamy, MD, an internal medicine hospitalist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, discharged a patient with Clostridioides difficile infection, he followed clinical guidelines to prescribe vancomycin for 10 to 14 days. “And the insurance company said, ‘Well, yeah, we only authorize about 5 days,’ which just makes no sense,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “There’s nowhere in any literature that says 5 days is sufficient. What worries me is that is the standard of care we are supposed to give and yet we are unable to.”

Yash B. Jobanputra, MD, a cardiology fellow at Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Mass., laments that prior authorization is used in situations that simply do not make common sense. During his residency, a woman who had tested positive for the BRCA gene mutation with a strong family history of breast cancer needed a breast ultrasound and an MRI scan every 6 months to 1 year. Despite the documentation that she was at extremely high risk for developing breast cancer, he had to go through prior authorization every time she was due for new images.

“I had to call the insurance company, they would put me on hold, I would wait to speak to a physician — and the end response would be, ‘Yeah, this is what needs to be done,’” he said. “But having established her positive status once should be enough really. I shouldn’t have to go through the circus all over again.”

Prior authorization is also being used for routine diagnostics, such as a Holter monitor for patients complaining of heart palpitations. “Depending on the insurance, for some patients we can give it to them in the clinic right away,” Dr. Jobanputra said. “Whereas some others we have to wait until we get prior authorization from the insurance company and the patient has to come back again to the hospital to get the monitor. That is a delay in patient care.”

The delays also extend to emergency care, Dr. Doraiswamy said. He cites the example of a heart attack patient who needed an emergency heart catheterization but ran into a prior authorization delay. “I just said, ‘Try your best not to get stressed’ which is not easy for a patient finding out their stay wasn’t covered when they had just been through a heart attack,” he said. “Then I spent 20 to 30 minutes — most of it on hold — to answer the question ‘Why did this patient need to get admitted?’ “

Physicians feel disrespected because that type of prior authorization hassle is just busywork. “Rarely is a valid stay that was initially denied, not eventually accepted,” Dr. Doraiswamy said. “But why couldn’t they have just seen that the guy had a heart attack and he obviously needed to be in the hospital?”

For Dr. Spector, the Duke Health sleep medicine specialist, prior authorization is not just a speed bump, it’s a full stop. Insurers have started mandating a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to confirm narcolepsy before covering medication to treat the condition. “We know that the MSLT is very often wrong,” he said. “There are a lot of times we’re dealing with patients with narcolepsy who simply don’t meet the testing criteria that the insurance requires, and payers will not accept our clinical judgment.”

In his view, the prior authorization landscape is worsening — and not only because a “faulty test” is being used to deny treatment. “The appeal process is worse,” Dr. Spector said. “I used to be able to get on the phone and do a peer-to-peer review with a physician who I could reason with… but that doesn’t happen anymore. There is virtually no way to bypass these blanket rules.”

Other survey findings also stand in direct contradiction of the 2018 consensus agreement:

A large majority (87%) of physicians report that prior authorization interferes with continuity of care, even though the industry groups agreed that patients should be protected from treatment disruption when there is a formulary or treatment-coverage change.

Despite a consensus to encourage transparency and easy accessibility of prior authorization requirements, 68% of physicians reported that it is difficult to determine whether a prescription medication requires prior authorization, and 58% report that it’s difficult for medical services.

Phone and fax are the most commonly used methods for completing prior authorizations, despite agreement that electronic prior authorization, using existing national standard transactions, should be accelerated. Fewer than one quarter of physicians said that their electronic health record system supports electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

Dr. Spector wants to see legislation that forces insurers to live up to some of the tenets of the 2018 consensus statement. In September, a new Texas law went into effect, exempting physicians from prior authorization if, during the previous six months, 90% of their treatments met an insurer›s medical necessity criteria. In January, the recently approved Prior Authorization Reform Act in Illinois will reduce the number of services subject to prior authorization, mandate a prior authorization decision within 5 days, and set disciplinary measures for health plans that do not comply, among other things.

“What gives me hope is that at least somewhere in the country, somebody is doing something,” Dr. Spector said. “And if it goes well, maybe other insurers will adopt it. I’m really hoping they demonstrate that the money they can save on the administration of all the appeals and prior authorization paperwork can actually go into caring for patients.”

In addition to state-level action, reform may also be advancing at the federal level. In October, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate that mirrors a prior authorization reform bill introduced in the House of Representatives last May. Both bills have broad bipartisan support; the House bill has more than 235 co-sponsors.

In an interview with this news organization, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) said it is “very realistic” that the bill will become law during this session of Congress. “We do think this bill will get marked up in committee and hopefully we can get it to the floor either as a stand-alone bill where we know we have the votes to pass it or as part of a larger legislative package,” he said.

If approved, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 would require that Medicare Advantage plans minimize the use of prior authorization for routinely approved services; require real-time decisions for certain requests; report the extent of their use of prior authorization and their rate of approvals or denials, among other things; and establish an electronic prior authorization system.

Medicare Advantage plans are private insurers that are regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which will create the specific rules and penalties associated with the reforms, if they become law. “One would presume that a condition of being a Medicare Advantage plan is that you’re going to have to comply with these new regulations,” said Katie Orrico, senior vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS). “So they will have some amount of teeth in the form of a mandate.”

The AANS and CNS are part of the Regulatory Relief Coalition, a group of 14 national physician specialty organizations. Winning prior authorization reform in the Medicare Advantage plans is part of its bigger strategy. “If those commercial plans have to follow a set of rules and processes for Medicare, then why not just expand those same processes to all other parts of their business?” Ms. Orrico said. 

Despite his frustration with their prior authorization processes, Dr. Doraiswamy, the Ohio State hospitalist, agrees that working to improve insurers’ practices is the best way forward. “It’s so easy to make them look like these evil, giant conglomerations that exist solely to suck money and not care about anyone’s health, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” he said. “We really have to figure out how best to work with insurance companies to make sure that, while they are profit-generating institutions, that [profit] shouldn’t come at the cost of patient care.”

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