Federal Practitioner

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

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

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

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

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a high-dose naloxone injection product for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

ZIMHI from Adamis Pharmaceuticals is administered using a single-dose, prefilled syringe that delivers 5 mg of naloxone hydrochloride solution through intramuscular or subcutaneous injection.

Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that works by blocking or reversing the effects of the opioid, including extreme drowsiness, slowed breathing, or loss of consciousness.

Opioid-related overdose deaths — driven partly by prescription drug overdoses — remain a leading cause of death in the United States.

ZIMHI “provides an additional option in the treatment of opioid overdoses,” the FDA said in a statement announcing approval.

In a statement from Adamis Pharmaceuticals, Jeffrey Galinkin, MD, an anesthesiologist and former member of the FDA advisory committee for analgesics and addiction products, said he is “pleased to see this much-needed, high-dose naloxone product will become part of the treatment tool kit as a countermeasure to the continued surge in fentanyl related deaths.”

“The higher intramuscular doses of naloxone in ZIMHI should result in more rapid and higher levels of naloxone in the systemic circulation, which in turn, should result in more successful resuscitations,” Dr. Galinkin said.

Last spring the FDA approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of opioid overdose.

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

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

The company plans to launch ZIMHI in the first quarter of 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine for use in children aged 6 months and older, according to a statement from manufacturer Seqirus.

“This approval officially allows all eligible Americans to receive a cell-based influenza vaccine, increasing the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness,” according to the company.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends annual influenza vaccination for all individuals aged 6 months and older without contraindications.

Flucelvax is manufactured using a cell-based process that yields a more precise match to the WHO-selected influenza strains for a given year. This process avoids the variation associated with traditional egg-based vaccines, and offers the potential for greater vaccine effectiveness, according to the company.

The approval was based in part on data from a phase 3 randomized, controlled noninferiority study of children aged 6-47 months. The data are the first for a cell-based flu vaccine in this age group, and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in 2021.

In the immunogenicity study of children aged 6 months through 3 years, described in the package insert, 1,597 children received Flucelvax quadrivalent and 805 received a control quadrivalent vaccine. After 28 days, Flucelvax showed noninferiority to the control quadrivalent against four influenza strains.

The most common side effects with Flucelvax quadrivalent vaccine overall are pain, redness, swelling, or a hardened area at the injection site, headache, low energy, muscle aches, and malaise. Additional side effects reported in children include tenderness or bruising at the injection site, sleepiness, diarrhea, changes in eating habits, and irritability. The vaccine is contraindicated for individuals with allergies to any of its ingredients.

Additional efficacy data on Flucelvax for children and adolescents aged 2-18 years were recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Full prescribing information for Flucelvax is available here.

The FDA approval letter is available here.[email protected]

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In June, Gerald Bock, MD, a dermatologist in central California, instituted a new office policy: He would not be seeing any more patients who remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 in his practice.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“[It is] the height of self-centered and irresponsible behavior,” he told me. “People who come in unvaccinated, when vaccination is widely available, are stating that their personal preferences are more important than their health, and are more important than any risk that they may expose their friends and family to, and also to any risk they might present to my staff and me. We have gone to considerable effort and expense to diminish any risk that visiting our office might entail. I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”

Other doctors appear to be following in his footsteps. There is no question that physicians have the right to choose their patients, just as patients are free to choose their doctors, but is it ethical to treat unvaccinated patients differently than their vaccinated counterparts? That is a complicated question without a clear answer. In a statement on whether physicians can decline unvaccinated patients, the American Medical Association continues to maintain that “in general” a physician may not “ethically turn a patient away based solely on the individual’s infectious disease status,” but does concede that “the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance the urgency of the individual patient’s need; the risk the patient may pose to other patients in the physician’s practice; and the need for the physician and staff, to be available to provide care in the future.”

Medical ethics experts have offered varying opinions. Daniel Wikler, PhD, professor of ethics and population health at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that “ignorance or other personal failing” should not be factors in the evaluation of patients for health care. He argues that “doctors and hospitals are not in the blame and punishment business. Nor should they be. That doctors treat sinners and responsible citizens alike is a noble tradition.”

Timothy Hoff, professor of management, healthcare systems, and health policy at Northeastern University, Boston, maintains that, in nonemergency situations, physicians are legally able to refuse patients for a variety of reasons, provided they are not doing so because of some aspect of the patient’s race, gender, sexuality, or religion. However, in the same Northeastern University news release,Robert Baginski, MD, the director of interdisciplinary affairs for the department of medical sciences at Northeastern, cautions that it is vital for health authorities to continue urging the public to get vaccinated, but not at the expense of care.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University, said in a Medscape commentary, that the decision to refuse to see patients who can vaccinate, but choose not to, is justifiable. “If you’re trying to protect yourself, your staff, or other patients, I think you do have the right to not take on somebody who won’t vaccinate,” he writes. “This is somewhat similar to when pediatricians do not accept a family if they won’t give their kids the state-required shots to go to school. That’s been happening for many years now.

“I also think it is morally justified if they won’t take your advice,” he continues. “If they won’t follow what you think is the best healthcare for them [such as getting vaccinated], there’s not much point in building that relationship.”

The situation is different in ED and hospital settings, however. “It’s a little harder to use unvaccinated status when someone really is at death’s door,” Dr. Caplan pointed out. “When someone comes in very sick, or whatever the reason, I think we have to take care of them ethically, and legally we’re bound to get them stable in the emergency room. I do think different rules apply there.”

In the end, every private practitioner will have to make his or her own decision on this question. Dr. Bock feels he made the right one. “Since instituting the policy, we have written 55 refund checks for people who had paid for a series of cosmetic procedures. We have no idea how many people were deterred from making appointments. We’ve had several negative online reviews and one woman who wrote a letter to the Medical Board of California complaining that we were discriminating against her,” he said. He added, however, that “we’ve also had several patients who commented favorably about the policy. I have no regrets about instituting the policy, and would do it again.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

A paper claiming that myocarditis cases spiked after teenagers began receiving COVID-19 vaccines has earned a “temporary removal” — without any explanation from the publisher.

The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.

It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]

Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.

Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:

Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.

While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)

Here’s the notice:

The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.

The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .

Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”

She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”

Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.

Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:

To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.

To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.

The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

Untreated PD-L1 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-selected, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial comparing pembrolizumab to the investigational immunotherapies ociperlimab (an anti-TIGIT antibody) and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor). Participants will be treated until death or progression of disease, whichever comes first, up to approximately 39 months. The multinational study started recruiting June 8 and hopes to enroll 605 participants. U.S. trial centers are in Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia. Overall survival (OS) is a primary outcome, and quality of life (QoL) will be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Newly diagnosed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Adult patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, locally advanced, stage III unresectable NSCL are being recruited for a phase 3 study comparing sequential combinations of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and the immunotherapies ociperlimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab (Imfinzi). Participants will receive therapy until disease progression or up to 16 months from randomization, whichever occurs first. The trial began recruiting on June 17 at the Central Care Cancer Center, in Bolivar, Mo. OS and QoL over 16 months are secondary outcomes. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Patients with untreated small cell lung cancer and documented limited-stage disease (stages Tx, T1-T4, N0-3, M0; AJCC staging, eighth edition) can join a phase 2 study comparing the immunotherapies ociperlimab and tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The trial will last 30 months from the date of the study’s first recruitment. Investigators are aiming to recruit 120 people globally. U.S. sites are in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome. OS over 30 months is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be tracked. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Stage III unresectable NSCLC. Patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with positive circulating tumor DNA are being recruited for a phase 3 study testing whether or not circulating cancer cells in the blood can be decreased by combining standard treatment durvalumab with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin/pemetrexed or carboplatin/paclitaxel). Patients will receive durvalumab for 1 year, with or without four cycles of chemotherapy. The study opened on August 25 at Stanford University, in California. OS over 2 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated stage IV NSCLC. Patients with nonsquamous stage IV NSCLC not treated for metastatic disease are being recruited for a phase 2 study of the experimental immunotherapy SEA-CD40 in combination with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin. Participants will be treated for approximately 2 years. Objective response rate is the primary outcome. OS over 4 years is a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The study opened on September 30 in Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. More details are avaiable at clinicaltrials.gov.

Untreated metastatic NSCLC. Patients with metastatic squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC are sought for a phase 3 trial that will compare a new subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab with standard intravenous pembrolizumab, both given in combination with chemotherapy. Patients will be treated with immunotherapy for up to approximately 2 years until the occurrence of disease progression or intolerable adverse events or the participant/physician decides to stop. Drug pharmacokinetic performance is the primary outcome measure. OS over 5 years will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. QoL will not be assessed. The international trial has U.S. sites in Florida, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. More details are available at clinicaltrials.gov.

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

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

A mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer is to deprive it of androgens, the hormones that make it grow. The testes are the main source of these hormones, so treatment can consist of either surgical removal of these organs or use of drugs to block their hormone production.

Over time, some prostate cancers become resistant to these treatments and begin to expand again. As with many cancers that show these behaviors, finding exactly what makes them resistant can be tricky.

A culprit may be bacteria that live in the gut. Researchers found that in castrated mice and in people having androgen deprivation therapy, some of these gut bacteria start producing androgens that are easily taken into the bloodstream. According to these new findings,published in the journal Science, the androgens seem to support the growth of prostate cancer and its resistance to treatment.

This study is the first to show that bacteria can produce testosterone, although the investigators are not yet sure what triggers them to start doing that. Androgen deprivation treatment may also lead to more of these hormone-producing microbes in the gut, the results suggest. Fecal bacterial of people with treatment-resistant prostate cancer also showed a link to lower life expectancy.

Fecal transplants from mice with treatment-resistant prostate cancer could trigger resistance in animals with disease susceptible to these hormones. When these mice received fecal transplants from humans with resistant cancer, the effect was the same: a shift to treatment resistance.

But the converse also was true: Fecal transplants from mice or humans with hormone-susceptible cancer contributed to limiting tumor growth.

The findings may suggest new therapeutic targets: the microbes living in the gut. In mouse studies, the researchers found that when they wiped out these bacteria, the cancer was much slower to progress to treatment resistance. Authors of a commentary accompanying the study say there are other places to look for bacteria that might be making these hormones, too, including the urinary tract or even in the tumor itself.

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

A mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer is to deprive it of androgens, the hormones that make it grow. The testes are the main source of these hormones, so treatment can consist of either surgical removal of these organs or use of drugs to block their hormone production.

Over time, some prostate cancers become resistant to these treatments and begin to expand again. As with many cancers that show these behaviors, finding exactly what makes them resistant can be tricky.

A culprit may be bacteria that live in the gut. Researchers found that in castrated mice and in people having androgen deprivation therapy, some of these gut bacteria start producing androgens that are easily taken into the bloodstream. According to these new findings,published in the journal Science, the androgens seem to support the growth of prostate cancer and its resistance to treatment.

This study is the first to show that bacteria can produce testosterone, although the investigators are not yet sure what triggers them to start doing that. Androgen deprivation treatment may also lead to more of these hormone-producing microbes in the gut, the results suggest. Fecal bacterial of people with treatment-resistant prostate cancer also showed a link to lower life expectancy.

Fecal transplants from mice with treatment-resistant prostate cancer could trigger resistance in animals with disease susceptible to these hormones. When these mice received fecal transplants from humans with resistant cancer, the effect was the same: a shift to treatment resistance.

But the converse also was true: Fecal transplants from mice or humans with hormone-susceptible cancer contributed to limiting tumor growth.

The findings may suggest new therapeutic targets: the microbes living in the gut. In mouse studies, the researchers found that when they wiped out these bacteria, the cancer was much slower to progress to treatment resistance. Authors of a commentary accompanying the study say there are other places to look for bacteria that might be making these hormones, too, including the urinary tract or even in the tumor itself.

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

A mainstay of treatment for prostate cancer is to deprive it of androgens, the hormones that make it grow. The testes are the main source of these hormones, so treatment can consist of either surgical removal of these organs or use of drugs to block their hormone production.

Over time, some prostate cancers become resistant to these treatments and begin to expand again. As with many cancers that show these behaviors, finding exactly what makes them resistant can be tricky.

A culprit may be bacteria that live in the gut. Researchers found that in castrated mice and in people having androgen deprivation therapy, some of these gut bacteria start producing androgens that are easily taken into the bloodstream. According to these new findings,published in the journal Science, the androgens seem to support the growth of prostate cancer and its resistance to treatment.

This study is the first to show that bacteria can produce testosterone, although the investigators are not yet sure what triggers them to start doing that. Androgen deprivation treatment may also lead to more of these hormone-producing microbes in the gut, the results suggest. Fecal bacterial of people with treatment-resistant prostate cancer also showed a link to lower life expectancy.

Fecal transplants from mice with treatment-resistant prostate cancer could trigger resistance in animals with disease susceptible to these hormones. When these mice received fecal transplants from humans with resistant cancer, the effect was the same: a shift to treatment resistance.

But the converse also was true: Fecal transplants from mice or humans with hormone-susceptible cancer contributed to limiting tumor growth.

The findings may suggest new therapeutic targets: the microbes living in the gut. In mouse studies, the researchers found that when they wiped out these bacteria, the cancer was much slower to progress to treatment resistance. Authors of a commentary accompanying the study say there are other places to look for bacteria that might be making these hormones, too, including the urinary tract or even in the tumor itself.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]