User login
-
Mask mandates ending in all but one state
As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States,
Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.
But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.
As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.
“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.
As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.
State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.
In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.
The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States,
Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.
But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.
As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.
“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.
As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.
State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.
In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.
The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to decline across the United States,
Retailers and cruises are following along, with Apple and Target stores lifting their own mask mandates this week. Cruise lines such as Norwegian and Royal Caribbean International have said mask requirements will be relaxed for vaccinated passengers, according to the Washington Post.
But guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn’t changed even as the Omicron variant recedes across the country. Vaccinated people should wear masks when indoors in areas of “substantial or high transmission,” which still covers more than 95% of the country, according to a CDC map.
As daily cases continue to fall, the CDC is reviewing its recommendations, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, said during a briefing last week.
“We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing, when these metrics are better, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things worsen,” she said.
As states relax mask rules, county and city officials are now deciding what to do in their jurisdictions. Vaccinated residents in Los Angeles County may soon be able to go maskless in indoor settings that check for proof of vaccination, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Chicago will also end its mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public places such as restaurants Feb. 28, according to the Chicago Tribune. Illinois will end a statewide indoor mask mandate on the same day. Masks will still be required in health care settings and public transmit.
State and local school boards are debating their mask policies as well. The Maryland State Board of Education voted Feb. 22 to allow local school districts to decide whether students must wear face coverings in school, according to the Associated Press. The update will take effect on March 1 if approved by a Maryland General Assembly committee that oversees the rule.
In New York, state officials have begun lifting mask rules. At the same time, 58% of New York voters want to see early March data before school mask mandates are ended, according to a new poll, released Feb. 22 by the Siena College Research Institute. About 45% of those polled said the state’s indoor public mask mandate should also still be in place.
The debate about wearing masks in schools will likely continue, especially as districts get caught between health authorities and parents, according to the Wall Street Journal. District officials in several states are receiving hundreds of emails daily from both sides, with parents calling for mask rules to end or saying that requirements should remain in place for now to keep kids safe.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Twenty-three percent of health care workers likely to leave industry soon: Poll
according to a new poll.
About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.
“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.
“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”
The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.
A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.
Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.
If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.
“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.
During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.
What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.
Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”
Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).
Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new poll.
About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.
“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.
“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”
The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.
A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.
Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.
If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.
“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.
During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.
What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.
Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”
Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).
Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new poll.
About half of the respondents to the poll from USA Today/Ipsos reported feeling “burned out,” 43% said they were “anxious,” and 21% said they were “angry” about politics and abuse from patients and families.
“We’re trying to help people here, and we are getting verbally and physically abused for it,” Sarah Fried, a nurse in California who responded to the survey, told USA Today in a follow-up interview.
“Early in this pandemic, people were clapping for us and calling us heroes,” she said. “And what happened to that? What happened to them appreciating what nurses are doing?”
The poll was done Feb. 9-16 among 1,170 adults in the U.S. health care industry, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, home health aides, dentists, and other medical professionals.
A large majority of workers still reported being satisfied with their jobs, although that optimism has declined somewhat since early 2021 when the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was underway. About 80% of those in the recent poll said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their current job, which is down from 89% in an April 2021 poll from Kaiser Family Foundation/the Washington Post.
Most health care workers reported feeling “hopeful” (59%), “motivated” (59%), or “optimistic” (56%) about going to work. But “hopeful” is down from 76% and “optimistic” is down from 67%, compared with last year.
If they could pick a career over again, about 16% disagreed with the statement, “I would still decide to go into health care,” and 18% said they didn’t know how they felt about it.
“The pandemic has actually made me realize how important this career is and how I really do make a difference. I still love it,” Christina Rosa, a mental health counselor in Massachusetts, told USA Today.
During the pandemic, about 66% of those polled said they had treated a COVID-19 patient, which increased to 84% among nurses and 86% among hospital workers. Among those, 47% reported having a patient who died from COVID-19, including 53% of nurses and 55% of hospital workers.
What’s more, 81% of those who treated COVID-19 patients have cared for unvaccinated patients. Among those, 67% said their patients continued to express skepticism toward COVID-19 vaccines, and 38% said some patients expressed regret for not getting a vaccine. Beyond that, 26% said unvaccinated patients asked for unproven treatments, and 30% said the patient or family criticized the care they received.
Regarding coronavirus-related policy, most Americans working in health care expressed skepticism or criticism of the nation’s handling of the pandemic. About 39% agreed that the American health care system is “on the verge of collapse.”
Only 21% said the pandemic is mostly or completely under control. About 61% don’t think Americans are taking enough precautions to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
Health care workers were slightly positive when it comes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (54% approve, 34% disapprove), divided on the Biden administration (41% approve, 40% disapprove), and critical of the news media (20% approve, 61% disapprove) and the American public (18% approve, 68% disapprove).
Broadly, though, health care workers support public health efforts. About 85% back measures that provide N95 masks, and 83% back measures that provide COVID-19 tests.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Your heart doesn’t like peas any more than you do
Big Vegetable has lied to us all
Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.
Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.
For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.
Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.
The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
The good old days of surgery?
Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.
But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.
One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.
What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.
The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.
Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
I hate that song, with reason
Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.
Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.
“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.
Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.
But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.
So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.
Big Vegetable has lied to us all
Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.
Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.
For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.
Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.
The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
The good old days of surgery?
Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.
But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.
One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.
What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.
The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.
Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
I hate that song, with reason
Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.
Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.
“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.
Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.
But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.
So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.
Big Vegetable has lied to us all
Hear this, children of the world: Your parents have betrayed you. They tell you day in and day out that vegetables are necessary, that they’re healthy, that you need them, but it is not the truth. Behind their foul taste is nothing but empty lies.
Okay, before we get a full-blown child rebellion on our hands, let’s reel things in. Eating vegetables has many benefits, and will help prevent many nasty medical conditions, such as diabetes or cancer. However, cardiovascular disease is not among them.
For their study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, researchers analyzed the diet, lifestyle, and medical history of nearly 400,000 U.K. adults over a 5-year period, finding that 4.5% developed heart disease and that the average adult consumed about 5 tablespoons of vegetables per day. Those who consumed the most vegetables had a reduction in heart disease incidence of about 15%, compared with those who ate the least.
Hang on, you’re thinking, we just said that vegetables didn’t prevent cardiovascular disease. But the data show otherwise! Ah, but the data are unadjusted. Once the researchers took socioeconomic status, information level, and general lifestyle into account, that benefit disappeared almost completely. The benefit seems to come not from the vegetables themselves, but from being able to afford better food and medical care in general.
The researchers were quick to note the other benefits of eating vegetables, and that people should probably keep eating those five servings a day. But we’re onto you, scientists. You can’t fool us with your vegetable-based lies. Unless we’re talking about pizza. Pizza is the best vegetable.
The good old days of surgery?
Modern surgical instruments, techniques, and technological innovations are amazing. It’s hard to imagine what surgery was like before laparoscopes came along, or x-ray machines, or even anesthesia. But those days weren’t really that long ago. Modern anesthesia, after all, dates back to just 1846. We’ve got socks almost that old.
But suppose we go back even further … say 5,300 years. Older than the oldest sock. Scientists studying a funerary chamber in Burgos, Spain, which was built in the 4th millennium B.C., have come across what looks like “the first known radical mastoidectomy in the history of humankind,” Sonia Díaz-Navarro of the University of Valladolid (Spain) and associates wrote in Scientific Reports.
One of the skulls they uncovered shows signs of trepanation. “Despite the [evidence] of cut marks, it is difficult to conclude the type of tool used to remove the bone tissue, most likely a sharp instrument with a circular movement,” they investigators said.
What is clear, though, is that the patient survived the surgery, because there is evidence of bone regeneration at the surgical sites. Sites? “Based on the differences in bone remodelling between the two temporals, it appears that the procedure was first conducted on the right ear, due to an ear pathology sufficiently alarming to require an intervention, which this prehistoric woman survived,” they explained.
The same procedure was then performed on the left ear, “but whether this was performed shortly after the right ear, or several months or even years later can’t be concluded from the existing evidence,” IFL Science reported.
Located nearby was a small section of tree bark with some scratches on it. That, ladies and gentlemen, was the first prior authorization form.
I hate that song, with reason
Do you have a favorite song? You may have a million reasons for loving that song. And past research can tell you why. But it’s only in a recent study that researchers were able to tell you why you dislike a song. And you know the song we’re talking about.
Dislike breaks down into three major categories of rationale: subject-related reasons (how the song makes you feel emotionally and/or physically), object-related reasons (the lyrics or composition), and social reasons (do you relate to this?). Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics in Frankfurt, Germany, interviewed 21 participants and asked them to come up with a prepared list of music that they disliked and why they didn’t like it. And there was a lot that they didn’t like: 277 dislikes worth, to be exact.
“The most often mentioned type of dislike was musical style, followed by artist and genre,” senior author Julia Merrill explained on Eurekalert. Just over 40% of those rationales for not liking the music just had to do with the music itself, but 85% involved the music combined with one of the other categories.
Social reasoning played a big part in dislike. If the listener didn’t feel like a part of the target in-group for the music or the music didn’t have the same social values as those of the listener, it had an impact on dislike, they said.
But our dislike of certain types of music doesn’t just separate us from people in a negative way. Looking at the dislike of certain types of music helps us define our terms of having good taste, the researchers explained. Saying that one type of music is better than another can bring us closer with like-minded people and becomes a piece of how we identify ourselves. Cue the music snobs.
So if you can blast Barry Manilow but can’t bring yourself to play the Rolling Stones, there’s a reason for that. And if you love Aretha Franklin but not Frank Sinatra, there’s a reason for that, too. It’s all very personal. Just as music is meant to be.
More exercise for people with hemophilia, experts advise
Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.
they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.
Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.
People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
MEMO expert consensus project
To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.
The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.
A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
Overview of the MEMO consensus statements
The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.
Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.
Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.
Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.
Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”
The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.
Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.
“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.
The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.
Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.
they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.
Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.
People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
MEMO expert consensus project
To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.
The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.
A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
Overview of the MEMO consensus statements
The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.
Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.
Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.
Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.
Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”
The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.
Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.
“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.
The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.
Clinicians should do more to encourage people with hemophilia to undertake regular physical activity and sporting activities, a panel of Italian experts has advised.
they wrote in a consensus paper published in Blood Transfusion.
Physical activity is not only recommended by the World Federation of Hemophilia for people with this bleeding disorder, but also recommended for everyone, depending on their age, by the World Health Organization.
People with hemophilia “are not exempt” from the WHO recommendations, noted Dr. Chiara Biasoli of the unit of transfusion medicine and Centre for Inherited Bleeding Disorders, Maurizio Bufalini Hospital in Cesena, Italy, and fellow expert panel members.
MEMO expert consensus project
To help clinicians decide when and how to recommend physical exercise to people with hemophilia, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues initiated the MEMO (Movement for Persons With Haemophilia) expert consensus project. The aim was to offer some clear practical guidance for routine practice.
The project began with a core group of 11 hemophilia experts meeting virtually in early 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The MEMO scientific committee, as they became known, formulated a set of consensus statements which they then put before members of the Italian Association of Hemophilia Centres, asking them to vote online on their level of agreement with each statement.
A modified Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus, with statements that scored 7 or higher on a 9-point rating scale moving forward into the next round of voting. A total of three voting rounds was made, which took into account the views of 40 experts, overall.
Overview of the MEMO consensus statements
The MEMO consensus statements cover three topic areas: the first four statements focus on the impact of hemophilia on movement, the next three give physical activity recommendations, and the final three look at choice and management of sporting activities.
Regarding the impact of hemophilia on movement, Dr. Biasoli and colleagues noted that “overweight and obesity are an increasing problem in PwH” and, due to their known association with poor physical health, urgently need to be addressed.
Perhaps “insufficient education by hematologists and other invoiced specialists” is at play, they suggested. Importantly, in children, “parents’ fears with consequent overprotection” may be contributing factors.
Not only is movement beneficial for improving joint function, they stated, but it’s also crucial to improving bone density and reducing the risk of joint bleeds.
Even people with inhibitors should be encouraged to be active more regularly, the expert panel said. This should of course be done with “particular caution and monitoring of the effectiveness of prophylaxis for the prevention of acute bleeding events, so that physical activity is conducted safely.”
The panel’s recommendations on sporting activities include the advice to work in a multidisciplinary team that involves hematologists, musculoskeletal specialists and specialists in sports medicine, with the latter helping decide on what sporting activity might be most appropriate. They also suggest that participation in sport should be encouraged from a young age, noting that the Canadian Hemophilia Society has issued some good tips in that regard.
Alongside the recommendations the MEMO expert panel has created four “pyramids of movement” to help clinicians visualize and discuss the recommendations with their patients.
“Physical activity can be considered as a low price intervention that can prevent/reduce the occurrence of chronic diseases and should be further encouraged,” Dr. Biasoli and fellow MEMO expert panel members concluded.
The members of the MEMO expert panel disclosed multiple financial ties with pharmaceutical companies, but none are relevant to the recommendations they made.
FROM BLOOD TRANSFUSION
Pediatrics group stresses benefits of vitamin K shots for infants
After the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began recommending vitamin K shots for newborns in 1961, infant bleeding as a result of vitamin K deficiency plummeted. The life-threatening disorder is so rare that some parents now question the need for injections to safeguard against it.
The situation amounts to “a failure of our success,” Ivan Hand, MD, a coauthor of a new AAP statement on vitamin K, told this news organization. Much like diseases that can be prevented with vaccines, vitamin K deficiency bleeding isn’t top of mind for parents. “It’s not something they’re aware of or afraid of,” he said.
In 2019, however, the AAP listed public education about the importance of the shots in its 10 most important priorities.
The policy update urges clinicians to bone up on the benefits and perceived risks of vitamin K deficiency, which is essential for clotting, and to “strongly advocate” for the shot in discussions with parents who may get competing messages from their social circles, the internet, and other health care professionals.
Dr. Hand, director of neonatology at NYC Health + Hospitals Kings County, Brooklyn, said clinicians walk a line between educating and alienating parents who favor natural birth processes. “We’re hoping that by talking to the families and answering their questions and explaining the risks, parents will accept vitamin K as a necessary treatment for their babies,” he said.
Vitamin K does not easily pass through the placenta and is not plentiful in breast milk, the preferred nutrition source for newborns. It takes months for babies to build their stores through food and gut bacteria.
Infants who do not receive vitamin K at birth are 81 times more likely to develop late-onset vitamin K deficiency bleeding, which occurs a week to 6 months after birth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One in five babies with the disorder dies, and about half have bleeding in the skull that can lead to brain damage.
New dosing for premature infants
The AAP’s new statement, published in the journal Pediatrics, reaffirms the administration of a 1-mg intramuscular dose for infants weighing more than 1,500 grams, or about 3 lb 5 oz, within 6 hours of birth. For premature infants who weigh less, the guidance recommends an intramuscular dose of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg.
The group notes that oral preparations of vitamin K have proven less effective because of malabsorption and challenges with adhering to dosing regimens.
The document also warns that breastfed babies can experience vitamin K deficiency bleeding even if they have received the shot, because concentration of vitamin K often wanes before a baby starts eating solid food. The disorder “should be considered when evaluating bleeding in the first 6 months of life, even in infants who received prophylaxis, and especially in exclusively breastfed infants,” it states.
Accounts of parental refusals date back to 2013, when the CDC reported four cases of deficiency bleeding in Tennessee. The infants’ parents said they declined vitamin K because they worried about increased risk of leukemia, thought the injection was unnecessary, or wanted to minimize the baby’s exposure to “toxins.” Leukemia concern stemmed from a 1992 report linking vitamin K to childhood cancer, an association that did not hold up in subsequent studies.
More recent research has documented parental concerns about preservatives and injection pain as well as distrust of medical and public health authorities. Some parents have been accused of neglect for refusing to allow their babies to receive the shots.
Phoebe Danziger, MD, a pediatrician and writer in rural Michigan who has studied parental refusal of standard-of-care interventions, called the document a “welcome update” to the AAP’s last statement on the topic, in 2003. She told this news organization that lower dosing for premature infants may reassure some vitamin K–hesitant parents who worry about one-size-fits-all dosing.
But Dr. Danziger added that “evidence is lacking to support the claim that pediatricians can really move the needle on parental hesitancy and refusal simply through better listening and more persuasive counseling.” She said the AAP should do more to address “the broader social climate of mistrust and misinformation” that fuels refusal.
Dr. Hand and Dr. Danziger have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began recommending vitamin K shots for newborns in 1961, infant bleeding as a result of vitamin K deficiency plummeted. The life-threatening disorder is so rare that some parents now question the need for injections to safeguard against it.
The situation amounts to “a failure of our success,” Ivan Hand, MD, a coauthor of a new AAP statement on vitamin K, told this news organization. Much like diseases that can be prevented with vaccines, vitamin K deficiency bleeding isn’t top of mind for parents. “It’s not something they’re aware of or afraid of,” he said.
In 2019, however, the AAP listed public education about the importance of the shots in its 10 most important priorities.
The policy update urges clinicians to bone up on the benefits and perceived risks of vitamin K deficiency, which is essential for clotting, and to “strongly advocate” for the shot in discussions with parents who may get competing messages from their social circles, the internet, and other health care professionals.
Dr. Hand, director of neonatology at NYC Health + Hospitals Kings County, Brooklyn, said clinicians walk a line between educating and alienating parents who favor natural birth processes. “We’re hoping that by talking to the families and answering their questions and explaining the risks, parents will accept vitamin K as a necessary treatment for their babies,” he said.
Vitamin K does not easily pass through the placenta and is not plentiful in breast milk, the preferred nutrition source for newborns. It takes months for babies to build their stores through food and gut bacteria.
Infants who do not receive vitamin K at birth are 81 times more likely to develop late-onset vitamin K deficiency bleeding, which occurs a week to 6 months after birth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One in five babies with the disorder dies, and about half have bleeding in the skull that can lead to brain damage.
New dosing for premature infants
The AAP’s new statement, published in the journal Pediatrics, reaffirms the administration of a 1-mg intramuscular dose for infants weighing more than 1,500 grams, or about 3 lb 5 oz, within 6 hours of birth. For premature infants who weigh less, the guidance recommends an intramuscular dose of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg.
The group notes that oral preparations of vitamin K have proven less effective because of malabsorption and challenges with adhering to dosing regimens.
The document also warns that breastfed babies can experience vitamin K deficiency bleeding even if they have received the shot, because concentration of vitamin K often wanes before a baby starts eating solid food. The disorder “should be considered when evaluating bleeding in the first 6 months of life, even in infants who received prophylaxis, and especially in exclusively breastfed infants,” it states.
Accounts of parental refusals date back to 2013, when the CDC reported four cases of deficiency bleeding in Tennessee. The infants’ parents said they declined vitamin K because they worried about increased risk of leukemia, thought the injection was unnecessary, or wanted to minimize the baby’s exposure to “toxins.” Leukemia concern stemmed from a 1992 report linking vitamin K to childhood cancer, an association that did not hold up in subsequent studies.
More recent research has documented parental concerns about preservatives and injection pain as well as distrust of medical and public health authorities. Some parents have been accused of neglect for refusing to allow their babies to receive the shots.
Phoebe Danziger, MD, a pediatrician and writer in rural Michigan who has studied parental refusal of standard-of-care interventions, called the document a “welcome update” to the AAP’s last statement on the topic, in 2003. She told this news organization that lower dosing for premature infants may reassure some vitamin K–hesitant parents who worry about one-size-fits-all dosing.
But Dr. Danziger added that “evidence is lacking to support the claim that pediatricians can really move the needle on parental hesitancy and refusal simply through better listening and more persuasive counseling.” She said the AAP should do more to address “the broader social climate of mistrust and misinformation” that fuels refusal.
Dr. Hand and Dr. Danziger have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) began recommending vitamin K shots for newborns in 1961, infant bleeding as a result of vitamin K deficiency plummeted. The life-threatening disorder is so rare that some parents now question the need for injections to safeguard against it.
The situation amounts to “a failure of our success,” Ivan Hand, MD, a coauthor of a new AAP statement on vitamin K, told this news organization. Much like diseases that can be prevented with vaccines, vitamin K deficiency bleeding isn’t top of mind for parents. “It’s not something they’re aware of or afraid of,” he said.
In 2019, however, the AAP listed public education about the importance of the shots in its 10 most important priorities.
The policy update urges clinicians to bone up on the benefits and perceived risks of vitamin K deficiency, which is essential for clotting, and to “strongly advocate” for the shot in discussions with parents who may get competing messages from their social circles, the internet, and other health care professionals.
Dr. Hand, director of neonatology at NYC Health + Hospitals Kings County, Brooklyn, said clinicians walk a line between educating and alienating parents who favor natural birth processes. “We’re hoping that by talking to the families and answering their questions and explaining the risks, parents will accept vitamin K as a necessary treatment for their babies,” he said.
Vitamin K does not easily pass through the placenta and is not plentiful in breast milk, the preferred nutrition source for newborns. It takes months for babies to build their stores through food and gut bacteria.
Infants who do not receive vitamin K at birth are 81 times more likely to develop late-onset vitamin K deficiency bleeding, which occurs a week to 6 months after birth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One in five babies with the disorder dies, and about half have bleeding in the skull that can lead to brain damage.
New dosing for premature infants
The AAP’s new statement, published in the journal Pediatrics, reaffirms the administration of a 1-mg intramuscular dose for infants weighing more than 1,500 grams, or about 3 lb 5 oz, within 6 hours of birth. For premature infants who weigh less, the guidance recommends an intramuscular dose of 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg.
The group notes that oral preparations of vitamin K have proven less effective because of malabsorption and challenges with adhering to dosing regimens.
The document also warns that breastfed babies can experience vitamin K deficiency bleeding even if they have received the shot, because concentration of vitamin K often wanes before a baby starts eating solid food. The disorder “should be considered when evaluating bleeding in the first 6 months of life, even in infants who received prophylaxis, and especially in exclusively breastfed infants,” it states.
Accounts of parental refusals date back to 2013, when the CDC reported four cases of deficiency bleeding in Tennessee. The infants’ parents said they declined vitamin K because they worried about increased risk of leukemia, thought the injection was unnecessary, or wanted to minimize the baby’s exposure to “toxins.” Leukemia concern stemmed from a 1992 report linking vitamin K to childhood cancer, an association that did not hold up in subsequent studies.
More recent research has documented parental concerns about preservatives and injection pain as well as distrust of medical and public health authorities. Some parents have been accused of neglect for refusing to allow their babies to receive the shots.
Phoebe Danziger, MD, a pediatrician and writer in rural Michigan who has studied parental refusal of standard-of-care interventions, called the document a “welcome update” to the AAP’s last statement on the topic, in 2003. She told this news organization that lower dosing for premature infants may reassure some vitamin K–hesitant parents who worry about one-size-fits-all dosing.
But Dr. Danziger added that “evidence is lacking to support the claim that pediatricians can really move the needle on parental hesitancy and refusal simply through better listening and more persuasive counseling.” She said the AAP should do more to address “the broader social climate of mistrust and misinformation” that fuels refusal.
Dr. Hand and Dr. Danziger have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women with von Willebrand disease: Managing menstrual and postpartum bleeding
Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.
The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.
In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.
The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.
The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.
The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.
The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.
The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.
However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.
The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines
The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.
“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.
“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.
“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”
From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”
Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”
Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.
The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.
The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.
In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.
The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.
The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.
The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.
The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.
The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.
However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.
The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines
The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.
“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.
“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.
“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”
From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”
Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”
Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.
The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Women with von Willebrand disease (VWD) experience many obstetric and gynecologic challenges, including higher levels of von Willebrand factor (VWF) in pregnancy, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues wrote.
The American Society of Hematology, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia convened a working group in 2017 to address updated guidelines on VWD with a focus on women, the researchers said.
In an article published in Blood Advances, the researchers described the evidence from three systematic reviews conducted to inform three recommendations for the guidelines: first-line management of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), treatment of women requiring or desiring neuraxial analgesia, and management of postpartum hemorrhage. The authors identified studies published through October 2019.
The first systematic review of first-line therapies for HMB included five case series, one retrospective cohort study, and one randomized controlled trial. In the randomized controlled trial of 232 patients, low-certainty evidence suggested less reduction of blood loss with desmopressin, compared with tranexamic acid (TxA), with no significant differences in side effects. Very-low-certainty evidence from an observational study also supported lower effectiveness of desmopressin versus hormonal therapy. Finally, the case series showed very-low-certainty evidence for the comparative effectiveness of hormonal therapy delivered via a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and other therapies for HMB control.
The second systematic review compared VWF levels in women who received neuraxial anesthesia during labor.
The review included five case series that described outcomes of women with VWF levels greater than 0.50 IU/mL; however, the studies did not describe outcomes according to VWF levels and did not cite the proportion of women with VWF levels greater than 1.50 IU/mL. Consequently, the evidence for the effects of increasing VWF levels was very low certainty, the authors said. In a meta-analysis, the proportion of anesthesia complications in these women was 6% (very low certainty). The complications included hypotension, accidental dural puncture, inadequate analgesia, bloody tap with no further complications, and failed block requiring general anesthesia.
The third systemic review included two retrospective cohort studies on the use of TxA during the postpartum period. In these studies, the authors found very-low-certainty evidence that TxA reduced the risk of severe primary postpartum hemorrhage, primary postpartum hemorrhage, and secondary postpartum hemorrhage (risk ratios, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.42, respectively). The effects of TxA on blood transfusions, vaginal hematoma, blood loss, and thrombotic complications also showed very-low-certainty evidence.
The currently available evidence for treatment options in women with VWD remains very low certainty, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Because hormonal therapy is effective in controlling HMB (based on data from women without bleeding disorders), we believe the most effective strategy to be hormonal therapy with a LNG-IUS or combined oral contraceptives, followed by TxA and desmopressin.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including scarce evidence, the risk of bias in the observational studies, and lack of comparisons/controls in the case series, the researchers noted. Notable literature gaps included data on outcomes including major bleeding and the need for surgery or additional treatments in the first review; mortality, major bleeding, spinal hematoma, transfusion, and thrombotic events in the second review; and mortality, major bleeding, and the need for other procedures in the third review.
However, the findings were strengthened by the use of broad eligibility criteria to include any studies with potential useful advice, including case series, if these were the only available options. In developing recommendations, “the guideline panel interpreted the evidence adding their experience and knowledge of indirect evidence,” the authors noted.
The current evidence, though mainly very low certainty, “is the best available to inform decisions about management. Clinicians seeking advice on how to manage their patients with VWD should refer to the practice guidelines and assess to what extent they are applicable to their patients,” the researchers concluded.
Meeting the need for evidence-based guidelines
The review is important at this time because current evidence-based guidelines are limited, said coauthor Veronica Flood, MD, a pediatric hematologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and a VWD researcher.
“While we have some guidelines that address von Willebrand disease, these were primarily based on expert opinion and not necessarily based on the best available evidence,” said Dr. Flood.
“Given how many people have von Willebrand disease, it is important that we actually base our recommendations on the data,” she emphasized. The new guidelines also incorporate patient feedback, with the inclusion of multiple panelists who are individuals living with VWD. “The final recommendations looked at not only the evidence, but the cost effectiveness, feasibility, and patient values and preferences,” she added.
“I was surprised we did not have better evidence for some of these common issues for patients with VWD,” said Dr. Flood. “I think that speaks to the need to do more high-quality research in this area.”
From a clinical standpoint, “we now have evidence-based guidelines that support the use of prophylaxis in patients with VWD and significant bleeding, as well as recommendations for surgery and bleeding issues around menstruation,” said Dr. Flood. “I do think it is also important to recognize that many of these are conditional recommendations, meaning there is room for patient preferences in implementation, which is helpful since we know that some people will have different priorities.”
Dr. Flood noted that more research is needed in many aspects of VWD. “We definitely need to better understand best options for surgical treatment, and I consider that a high priority. We are also hoping, along with the National Hemophilia Foundation, to develop some patient decision aids to help with some of these issues.”
Coauthor Nathan T. Connell, MD, an adult hematologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, served as the vice chair for the guideline panel. Dr. Connell agreed with the importance of the reviews and the need for additional research. “I, too, was surprised to see the lack of robust data to answer many of the basic questions about how to manage people living with VWD. Regarding the systematic reviews, I was surprised to see the power of combining the limited data in this way to come up with an evidence base for the panels to review,” he added.
The study was supported by the ASH, ISTH, NHF, and the WFH 2020 Guidelines for Management of VWD. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Subvariant may be more dangerous than original Omicron strain
, a lab study from Japan says.
“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.
The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.
“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.
BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.
What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2.
BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote.
“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”
If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.
But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.
“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”
“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.
Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants.
“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”
Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.
It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, a lab study from Japan says.
“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.
The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.
“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.
BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.
What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2.
BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote.
“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”
If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.
But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.
“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”
“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.
Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants.
“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”
Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.
It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, a lab study from Japan says.
“Our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of BA.2 for global health is potentially higher than that of BA.1,” the researchers said in the study published on the preprint server bioRxiv. The study has not been peer-reviewed.
The researchers infected hamsters with BA.1 and BA.2. The hamsters infected with BA.2 got sicker, with more lung damage and loss of body weight. Results were similar when mice were infected with BA.1 and BA.2.
“Infection experiments using hamsters show that BA.2 is more pathogenic than BA.1,” the study said.
BA.1 and BA.2 both appear to evade immunity created by COVID-19 vaccines, the study said. But a booster shot makes illness after infection 74% less likely, CNN said.
What’s more, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2.
BA.2 was “almost completely resistant” to casirivimab and imdevimab and was 35 times more resistant to sotrovimab, compared to the original B.1.1 virus, the researchers wrote.
“In summary, our data suggest the possibility that BA.2 would be the most concerned variant to global health,” the researchers wrote. “Currently, both BA.2 and BA.1 are recognised together as Omicron and these are almost undistinguishable. Based on our findings, we propose that BA.2 should be recognised as a unique variant of concern, and this SARS-CoV-2 variant should be monitored in depth.”
If the World Health Organization recognized BA.2 as a “unique variant of concern,” it would be given its own Greek letter.
But some scientists noted that findings in the lab don’t always reflect what’s happening in the real world of people.
“I think it’s always hard to translate differences in animal and cell culture models to what’s going on with regards to human disease,” Jeremy Kamil, PhD, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, told Newsweek. “That said, the differences do look real.”
“It might be, from a human’s perspective, a worse virus than BA.1 and might be able to transmit better and cause worse disease,” Daniel Rhoads, MD, section head of microbiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told CNN. He reviewed the Japanese study but was not involved in it.
Another scientist who reviewed the study but was not involved in the research noted that human immune systems are evolving along with the COVID variants.
“One of the caveats that we have to think about, as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous, is the fact that there’s two sides to the story,” Deborah Fuller, PhD, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine, told CNN. “Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that’s pushing back on things.”
Scientists have already established that BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1. The Omicron subvariant has been detected in 74 countries and 47 U.S. states, according to CNN. About 4% of Americans with COVID were infected with BA.2, the outlet reported, citing the CDC, but it’s now the dominant strain in other nations.
It’s not clear yet if BA.2 causes more severe illness in people. While BA.2 spreads faster than BA.1, there’s no evidence the subvariant makes people any sicker, an official with the World Health Organization said, according to CNBC.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ivermectin does not stop progression to severe COVID: randomized trial
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ivermectin treatment given to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the first week of illness did not prevent progression to severe disease, according to results from a randomized clinical trial.
“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers conclude in the paper published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The open-label trial was conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and Oct. 25, 2021. It was led by Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, department of medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Perak, Malaysia.
Among 490 patients in the primary analysis, 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). All major ethnic groups in Malaysia were well represented, the researchers write.
Participants (average age 62.5 and 54.5% women) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a 5-day course of oral ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days) plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). Standard of care included symptomatic therapy and monitoring for early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory tests, and chest imaging.
Secondary outcomes
Secondary outcomes included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and side effects.
In all the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups.
Mechanical ventilation occurred in four patients on the ivermectin protocol (1.7%) versus 10 patients in the control group (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17); ICU admission occurred in six (2.4%) versus eight (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79); and 28-day in-hospital death occurred in three (1.2%) versus 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09).
The most common adverse event was diarrhea, reported by 5.8% in the ivermectin group and 1.6% in the control group.
No difference by vaccine status
The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate any differences in whether participants were vaccinated. They said that analysis was “unremarkable.”
Just more than half of participants (51.8%) were fully vaccinated, with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Among the fully vaccinated patients, 17.7% in the ivermectin group and 9.2% in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19 but has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for that purpose. Evidence-based data for or against use has been sparse.
The authors write that “although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”
Dr. Lim and colleagues point out that their findings are consistent with those of the IVERCOR-COVID19 trial, which found ivermectin ineffective in reducing hospitalization risk.
Previous randomized trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients that have included at least 400 patients have focused on outpatients.
In the current study, the authors note, patients were hospitalized, which allowed investigators to observe administration of ivermectin with a high adherence rate. Additionally, the researchers used clearly defined criteria for determining progression to severe disease.
Limitations of the current study include that the open-label design might lead to under-reporting of adverse events in the control group while overestimating the drug effects of ivermectin. The study was also not designed to assess the effects of ivermectin on mortality from COVID-19.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICNE
Early in career, female academic docs earn less than males: study
Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.
Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.
Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.
Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.
The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).
Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play
The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.
The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.
Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.
“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”
Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”
Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”
In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.
Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.
The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.
Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.
Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.
Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.
The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).
Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play
The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.
The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.
Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.
“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”
Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”
Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”
In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.
Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.
The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Worse still, the earning potential of women in most specialties is $214,440 (or 10%) less than their male colleagues over the course of the first 10 years of their careers in academic medicine.
Among the vast majority of subspecialties, women’s starting salaries and their salaries 10 years into their careers were lower than their male colleagues in academic medicine, per the study in JAMA Network Open.
Eva Catenaccio, MD, an epilepsy fellow at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the study, told this news organization that the gender disparities in earning potential are “pervasive in academic medicine.” These earnings disparities, which occur in nearly all subspecialties and can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars in the first 10 years of an academic physician’s career, “are largely the result of gender differences in annual salary that start immediately after training,” she said.
Changing the timing of academic promotion and equalizing starting salary and salary growth can help close the salary gap, said Dr. Catenaccio.
The study also reveals that women could face a 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor, compared with men. This delay could reduce female physicians’ earning potential by a 10-year median of $26,042 (or 2%), whereas failure to be promoted at all could decrease the 10-year earning potential by a median of $218,724 (or 13%).
Across medicine more broadly, male physicians continue to earn 35% more than their female colleagues, according to the 2021 Medscape Physician Compensation Report. The biggest differences in take-home pay exist between male and female specialists, per the report. On average, male physicians earn $376,000, while women’s take-home pay is $283,000.
Medical schools and hospital leaders have a role to play
The earning potential during the first 10 years of post-training employment by gender was the most dramatic in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiology, per the study. Three subspecialties where women and men have similar earning potential include pediatric nephrology, pediatric neurology, and pediatric rheumatology.
The coauthors note that it’s commonly understood that women don’t negotiate as often or as successfully as their male colleagues. A 2019 study in JAMA Surgery of 606 male and female surgery residents revealed that while residents of both genders shared similar career goals, women had lower future salary expectations and a significantly more negative view of the salary negotiation process.
Dr. Catenaccio and her coauthors acknowledge that negotiation skills and financial literacy should be taught during medical school and postgraduate training. “However, the onus for ensuring salary equity should not fall on the individual candidate alone; rather, departmental and hospital leadership should take responsibility to ensure uniform starting salaries and prevent gender-based inequalities,” they wrote in the study.
“We hope that this study encourages academic medical institutions to increase transparency and equity around compensation, particularly for junior faculty,” Dr. Catenaccio said in an interview. “This will require both ensuring equal starting salaries and providing periodic adjustments throughout individuals’ careers to prevent divergence in earning potential by gender or any other individual characteristics.”
Harold Simon, MD, MBA, vice chair for faculty for the department of pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization that “[i]ncreased transparency around compensation can enable women to advocate for equitable pay. However, the burden for ensuring equity should not fall on individuals but instead must be the primary responsibility of academic institutions.”
Specifically, Dr. Simon advocates for hospital leaders to “ensure equity among providers including compensation [as] a crucial part of maintaining a diverse workforce and, ultimately, providing balanced access to health care for patients.”
In addition, the authors call for periodic compensation evaluations and adjustments to help prevent gender-based salary differences among female and male physicians in academia. “This is absolutely necessary, both to develop future compensation plans and to address any pre-existing gender-based salary inequities for those women currently well into their careers,” they wrote in the study.
Data analysis was conducted from March to May 2021. Researchers used models to estimate the impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, which include equalizing starting salaries and annual salary rates.
The study included compensation data for 24,593 female and 29,886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. It relied on publicly available data from the Association of American Medical Colleges’ annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first drug for rare inherited anemia
The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.
PK deficiency is rare. In clinical practice, its frequency is approximately 3-9 cases per 1 million people, the FDA noted. However, PK deficiency likely is misdiagnosed or undiagnosed, making it difficult to determine its frequency in the general population
PK deficiency is an inherited disorder that causes premature red blood cell destruction, leading to anemia, the agency explained in its announcement. Symptoms of PK deficiency range in severity and include fatigue, unusually pale skin, jaundice, shortness of breath, and a fast heart rate. Patients can also develop an enlarged spleen, can have too much iron in their blood from repeated blood transfusions, and can develop gallstones.
“Pyrukynd is the first approved therapy for PK deficiency and marks an important milestone for these patients, who may face tremendous challenges and debilitating symptoms throughout the course of this lifelong disease,” said Rachael Grace, MD, pediatric hematologist and director of hematology clinical research at Boston Children’s Hospital.
She was an investigator in the clinical trials that led to the approval. In a statement from the manufacturer, she added that “partnering with Agios and the PK deficiency community to improve understanding of the natural history of this rare disease and bring a new medicine to patients has been an honor, and I look forward to additional collaboration in the future.”
Clinical data
Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period
The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.
The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.
The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.
The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.
The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.
Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.
The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.
PK deficiency is rare. In clinical practice, its frequency is approximately 3-9 cases per 1 million people, the FDA noted. However, PK deficiency likely is misdiagnosed or undiagnosed, making it difficult to determine its frequency in the general population
PK deficiency is an inherited disorder that causes premature red blood cell destruction, leading to anemia, the agency explained in its announcement. Symptoms of PK deficiency range in severity and include fatigue, unusually pale skin, jaundice, shortness of breath, and a fast heart rate. Patients can also develop an enlarged spleen, can have too much iron in their blood from repeated blood transfusions, and can develop gallstones.
“Pyrukynd is the first approved therapy for PK deficiency and marks an important milestone for these patients, who may face tremendous challenges and debilitating symptoms throughout the course of this lifelong disease,” said Rachael Grace, MD, pediatric hematologist and director of hematology clinical research at Boston Children’s Hospital.
She was an investigator in the clinical trials that led to the approval. In a statement from the manufacturer, she added that “partnering with Agios and the PK deficiency community to improve understanding of the natural history of this rare disease and bring a new medicine to patients has been an honor, and I look forward to additional collaboration in the future.”
Clinical data
Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period
The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.
The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.
The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.
The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.
The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.
Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.
The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.
PK deficiency is rare. In clinical practice, its frequency is approximately 3-9 cases per 1 million people, the FDA noted. However, PK deficiency likely is misdiagnosed or undiagnosed, making it difficult to determine its frequency in the general population
PK deficiency is an inherited disorder that causes premature red blood cell destruction, leading to anemia, the agency explained in its announcement. Symptoms of PK deficiency range in severity and include fatigue, unusually pale skin, jaundice, shortness of breath, and a fast heart rate. Patients can also develop an enlarged spleen, can have too much iron in their blood from repeated blood transfusions, and can develop gallstones.
“Pyrukynd is the first approved therapy for PK deficiency and marks an important milestone for these patients, who may face tremendous challenges and debilitating symptoms throughout the course of this lifelong disease,” said Rachael Grace, MD, pediatric hematologist and director of hematology clinical research at Boston Children’s Hospital.
She was an investigator in the clinical trials that led to the approval. In a statement from the manufacturer, she added that “partnering with Agios and the PK deficiency community to improve understanding of the natural history of this rare disease and bring a new medicine to patients has been an honor, and I look forward to additional collaboration in the future.”
Clinical data
Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period
The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.
The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.
The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.
The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.
The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.
Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.
The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.