MDedge Surgery

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel recommends that health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities be the first to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is authorized for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 that both groups be in the highest-priority group for vaccination. As such, ACIP recommends that both be included in phase 1a of the committee’s allocation plan.

The recommendation now goes to CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, for approval. State health departments are expected to rely on the recommendation, but ultimately can make their own decisions on how to allocate vaccine in their states.

“We hope that this vote gets us all one step closer to the day when we can all feel safe again and when this pandemic is over,” said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, at today’s meeting.

Health care workers are defined as paid and unpaid individuals serving in health care settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials. Long-term care residents are defined as adults who reside in facilities that provide a variety of services, including medical and personal care. Phase 1a would not include children who live in such facilities.

“Our goal in phase 1a with regard to health care personnel is to preserve the workforce and health care capacity regardless of where exposure occurs,” said ACIP panelist Grace Lee, MD, MPH, professor of paediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University. Thus vaccination would cover clinical support staff, such as nursing assistants, environmental services staff, and food support staff.

“It is crucial to maintain our health care capacity,” said ACIP member Sharon Frey, MD, clinical director at the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University. “But it’s also important to prevent severe disease and death in the group that is at highest risk of those complications and that includes those in long-term care facilities.”

CDC staff said that staff and residents in those facilities account for 6% of COVID-19 cases and 40% of deaths.

But Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., voted against putting long-term care residents into the 1a phase. “We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young healthy population and then hope it works in our frail older adults. So we enter this realm of ‘we hope it works and that it’s safe,’ and that concerns me on many levels particularly for this vaccine,” she said, noting that the vaccines closest to FDA authorization have not been studied in elderly adults who live in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.

She added: “I have no reservations for health care workers taking this vaccine.”
 

Prioritization could change

The phase 1a allocation fits within the “four ethical principles” outlined by ACIP and CDC staff Nov. 23: to maximize benefits and minimize harms, promote justice, mitigate health inequities, and promote transparency.

“My vote reflects maximum benefit, minimum harm, promoting justice and mitigating the health inequalities that exist with regard to distribution of this vaccine,” said ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. Romero, chief medical officer of the Arkansas Department of Health, voted in favor of the phase 1a plan.

He and other panelists noted, however, that allocation priorities could change after the FDA reviews and authorizes a vaccine.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet December 10 to review the Pfizer/BioNTech’s messenger RNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2). The companies filed for emergency use on November 20.

A second vaccine, made by Moderna, is not far behind. The company reported on Nov. 30 that its messenger RNA vaccine was 94.1% effective and filed for emergency use the same day. The FDA’s VRBPAC will review the safety and efficacy data for the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 17.

“If individual vaccines receive emergency use authorization, we will have more data to consider, and that could lead to revision of our prioritization,” said ACIP member Robert Atmar, MD, John S. Dunn Research Foundation Clinical Professor in Infectious Diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

ACIP will meet again after the Dec. 10 FDA advisory panel. But it won’t recommend a product until after the FDA has authorized it, said Amanda Cohn, MD, senior advisor for vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
 

Staggered immunization subprioritization urged

The CDC staff said that given the potential that not enough vaccine will be available immediately, it was recommending that health care organizations plan on creating a hierarchy of prioritization within institutions. And, they also urged staggering vaccination for personnel in similar units or positions, citing potential systemic or other reactions among health care workers.

“Consider planning for personnel to have time away from clinical care if health care personnel experience systemic symptoms post vaccination,” said Sarah Oliver, MD, MSPH, from the CDC.

The CDC will soon be issuing guidance on how to handle systemic symptoms with health care workers, Dr. Oliver noted.

Some 40 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are expected to be available by the end of December, with 5 million to 10 million a week coming online after that, Dr. Cohn said. That means not all health care workers will be vaccinated immediately. That may require “subprioritization, but for a limited period of time,” she said.

Dr. Messonnier said that, even with limited supplies, most of the states have told the CDC that they think they can vaccinate all of their health care workers within 3 weeks – some in less time.

The ACIP allocation plan is similar to but not exactly the same as that issued by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which issued recommendations in October. That organization said that health care workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings, and people with underlying health conditions should be the first to receive a vaccine.

ACIP has said that phase 1b would include essential workers, including police officers and firefighters, and those in education, transportation, and food and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years or older.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

A two-layer vaginal cuff closure during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with fewer postoperative complications, compared with a standard one-layer closure, according to a retrospective study of approximately 3,000 patients.

The difference is driven by fewer vaginal cuff complications among patients whose surgeons used the two-layer technique, said Ann Peters, MD, of Magee-Womens Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

In light of these findings, Dr. Peters switched to using a two-layer closure. More surgeons may adopt this method, she said at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.
 

Modifiable factors

Complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy may be associated with modifiable surgical risk factors such as surgical volume, expertise, and suture material. The method of vaginal cuff closure also plays an important role, but few studies have compared multilayer and single-layer vaginal cuff closure, Dr. Peters said.

To investigate this question, Dr. Peters and colleagues analyzed data from 2,973 women who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications during a 6-year period at their institution.

The analysis included 1,760 patients (59%) who underwent single-layer closure and 1,213 (41%) who underwent two-layer closure. The closure method was a matter of surgeon preference. Aside from the closure technique, other aspects of the surgeries were standardized.

The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included vaginal cuff complications during 6 months of follow-up.

The groups generally had similar baseline characteristics, although patients in the two-layer group had lower body mass index and were less likely to use tobacco.

Intraoperative complications and postoperative readmissions did not differ between the groups. The rate of postoperative complications, however, was lower in the two-layer group: 3.5% versus 5.6%. Likewise, the rate of vaginal cuff complications was lower in the two-layer group: 0.9% versus 2.5%.

No instances of vaginal cuff dehiscence or mucosal separation occurred in the two-layer group, whereas 12 cases of dehiscence and 4 cases of mucosal separation occurred in the one-layer group.

Two-layer closure was associated with a decreased likelihood of complications, with an odds ratio of 0.36. Although the study is limited by its retrospective design, the surgeons had similar training and many variables, including the sutures used, were equal or standardized, Dr. Peters noted.

Avoiding rare complications

Grace M. Janik, MD, of Reproductive Specialty Center in Milwaukee, has long theorized that two-layer closure may be beneficial. This study provides data to support that theory, Dr. Janik said in a discussion following the research presentation.

Given that hysterectomy is a common procedure, “any optimization ... has implications for a large number of women,” Dr. Janik said. Although rare outcomes such as dehiscence are difficult to study, the large number of patients in this analysis allowed the investigators to detect differences between the groups.

Studies of vaginal cuff closure have yielded mixed results. For example, various studies have suggested that laparoscopic closure may be inferior to, equal to, or superior to vaginal closure. Together, the findings indicate that “what we are doing is probably more important than the route,” said Dr. Janik.

Along with multilayer closure, the use of delayed absorbable sutures and adequate tissue bites are other factors that may lead to fewer complications, Dr. Janik noted.

Dr. Peters and Dr. Janik had no relevant financial disclosures. A study coauthor is a consultant for Medtronic and Olympus. The statistical analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ali R et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.603.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.

Students have similar confidence levels during a simulated laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task whether they train with the current standard laparoscopic simulator or a newer gynecology-specific simulator, a randomized trial found.

Participants who trained on the gynecology-specific simulator, known as Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology (EMIG), reported higher confidence scores, but differences between the groups were not statistically significant, a researcher reported at the annual meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

The study compared EMIG with Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS), a laparoscopic simulator that general surgeons launched in 2004.

In 2018, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology announced an FLS requirement for residents graduating after May 31, 2020. The same year, the AAGL began validating EMIG. AAGL developed the simulator in response to a growing trend for minimally invasive approaches and to provide a training tool geared toward gynecologists, said Emily G. Lin, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

A comparison of the two simulators

The simulators use different port placement and operator positioning. The operating fields within the box trainers also differ. In EMIG, laparoscopic tasks take place within a bowl that simulates a confined workspace similar to a pelvis, whereas FLS tasks take place in an open box trainer environment, Dr. Lin said.

To compare students’ self-reported confidence levels after performing a laparoscopic vaginal cuff suturing task after training with EMIG or FLS, Dr. Lin and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial.

The researchers recruited 45 participants who were preclinical medical students or premedical college students without prior training experience. Participants were randomized to EMIG or FLS training. After watching instructional videos about their simulator tasks and the vaginal cuff suturing task, they attempted the vaginal cuff suturing task as a pretest.

They then trained for about 2 hours on their assigned simulator. Training for both groups included practicing peg transfer and intracorporeal knot tying. In addition, the EMIG group trained on a running suture task, and the FLS group trained on a ligating loop task.

After training, participants retried the vaginal cuff suturing task. Participants subsequently rated their confidence during each simulation task on a 5-point Likert scale.

Confidence levels on the peg transfer (4.13 with EMIG vs. 4.10 with FLS), intracorporeal knot tying (3.0 with EMIG vs. 2.86 with FLS) and vaginal cuff suturing (2.46 with EMIG vs. 2.05 with FLS) were similar for both groups.

The study was small, included only one training session, and included only three of the five tasks for each simulator because of time and cost constraints, Dr. Lin noted.
 

Using simulation in residency training

The study was well designed and sheds light on inevitable comparisons between FLS and EMIG, Ido Sirota, MD, MHA, of New York-Presbyterian Queens, said in a discussion following the research presentation.

“The field of medical simulation has developed tremendously in the past decade,” Dr. Sirota said. “The paradigm that used to be common in our field – of see one, do one, teach one – belongs to the past. ... Current trainees need extensive practice on their surgical skills in a simulation setting before” entering the operating room.

A 2017 review found that simulation may be a useful adjunct to residency training.

And in a pilot study, EMIG’s laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems were considered to have good face validity, Dr. Sirota noted.

Using a gynecology-specific simulation may have advantages.

“In this day and age when we are trying to differentiate ourselves as a subspecialty, there is a great value to developing our own simulation-based curricula to validate our surgical skills during training, as well as for maintenance throughout our career,” Dr. Sirota said. “We as a subspecialty need specific tests tailored to our surgical procedures.”

Dr. Sirota disclosed consulting for Medtronic, Activ Surgical, Heracure, and HT, and he is on the speakers bureau for Medtronic. Dr. Lin had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lin E et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.593.

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

Doctors commonly perform pelvic examinations approximately 6 weeks following hysterectomy to assess the integrity of the vaginal cuff. But this practice may not be necessary if patients do not have symptoms, a study suggests.

“The 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in asymptomatic women may not be necessary, as it neither detected cuff dehiscence nor negated future risk for dehiscence,” Ritchie Mae Delara, MD, said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL, held virtually this year.

Dr. Delara, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from more than 2,000 patients to assess the utility of the 6-week posthysterectomy pelvic examination in detecting cuff dehiscence in asymptomatic women.
 

An unpredictable complication

Vaginal cuff dehiscence is a rare complication of hysterectomy that can occur days or decades after surgery, which makes “identifying an optimal time for cuff evaluation difficult,” Dr. Delara said. “Currently there is neither evidence demonstrating benefit of routine posthysterectomy examination in detecting vaginal cuff dehiscence, nor data demonstrating the best time to perform posthysterectomy examination.”

For their study, which was also published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, the researchers examined data from 2,051 women who underwent hysterectomy at a single institution during a 6-year period. Patients received at least one postoperative evaluation within 90 days of surgery. Examination of the vaginal cuff routinely was performed approximately 6 weeks after hysterectomy. Patients’ posthysterectomy symptoms and pelvic examination findings were recorded.

About 80% of patients were asymptomatic at the 6-week visit.

Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have normal pelvic examination findings, compared with patients with posthysterectomy symptoms (86.4% vs. 54.3%).

In all, 13 patients experienced complete cuff dehiscence. All of them had an intact vaginal cuff at their 6-week examination. Three had symptoms at that time, including vaginal bleeding in one patient and pelvic pain in two patients.

One patient experienced a complete cuff dehiscence that was provoked by intercourse prior to her examination. The patient subsequently developed two additional episodes of dehiscence provoked by intercourse.

Dehiscence may present differently after benign and oncologic hysterectomies, the study indicated.

Eight patients who experienced complete cuff dehiscence after benign hysterectomy had symptoms such as pelvic pain and vaginal bleeding at the time of presentation for dehiscence, which mainly occurred after intercourse.

Five patients who experienced dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy were more likely to present without symptoms or provocation.

The median time to dehiscence after benign hysterectomy was about 19 weeks, whereas the median time to dehiscence after oncologic hysterectomy was about 81 weeks.

Surgeons should educate patients about symptoms of dehiscence and the potential for events such as coitus to provoke its occurrence, and patients should promptly seek evaluation if symptoms occur, Dr. Delara said.

Patients with risk factors such as malignancy may benefit from continued routine evaluation, she added.

Timely research

The findings may be especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when states have issued shelter-in-place orders and doctors have increased their use of telemedicine to reduce in-person visits, Dr. Delara noted.

In that sense, the study is “extremely timely” and may inform and support practice changes, commented Emad Mikhail, MD, in a discussion following the research presentation.

Whether the results generalize to other centers, including smaller centers that perform fewer surgeries, is unclear, said Dr. Mikhail, of the University of South Florida, Tampa.

“It takes vision and critical thinking to challenge these traditional practices,” he said. “I applaud Dr. Delara for challenging one of these.”

Dr. Delara and Dr. Mikhail had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Delara RMM et al. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.08.306.

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

It should not be surprising that the RA drug baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, might be beneficial in controlling the cytokine storm of hyperinflammation that can follow severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and lead to lung damage and acute respiratory distress syndrome – the leading cause of death from the virus.

But to demonstrate within a matter of months, at least preliminarily, that baricitinib reduces mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia required a widely cross-disciplinary international team of researchers from 10 countries working at breakneck speed, said Justin Stebbing, PhD, the principal investigator of a new baricitinib study published Nov. 13 in Science Advances. “We went from modeling and mechanistic investigations to clinical tests in a number of settings and laboratory analysis in record time.”

The international team of 50 researchers included medical specialists in rheumatology, virology, geriatrics, oncology, and general medicine, along with experts in molecular and cellular biology, bioinformatics, statistics and trial design, computer modeling, pathology, genetics, and super-resolution microscopy, Dr. Stebbing, professor of cancer medicine and medical oncology at Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

Artificial intelligence, provided by the London-based firm BenevolentAI, was used to sift through a huge repository of structured medical information to identify drugs that might block the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. It predicted that baricitinib would be a promising candidate to inhibit inflammation and reduce viral load in COVID-19. Previous reports by Dr. Stebbing and colleagues (here and here) describe this AI-mediated testing, which was validated by the new study.

The researchers also used three-dimensional miniature human liver organoids in vitro and super-resolution microscopy to perform further lab investigations, which showed that baricitinib reversed expression of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 triggered by type I interferons. Baricitinib inhibited the significant increase in ACE2 expression caused by interferon alpha-2, and thus cytokine-mediated inflammation, and also reduced infectivity, Dr. Stebbing said. “Our study of baricitinib shows that it has both antiviral and anticytokine effects and appears to be safe.”
 

71% mortality reduction

The team found a 71% reduction in mortality for a group of 83 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Italy and Spain – early epicenters of the pandemic – who received baricitinib along with standard care, compared with propensity-matched groups that received only standard care. At that time, between mid-March and mid-April, standard COVID-19 care included antibiotics, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir.

In the Spanish and Italian cohorts, baricitinib was generally well tolerated, although not without side effects, including bacterial infections and increases in liver enzyme levels, which may not have been related to baricitinib. Patients showed reductions in inflammation within days of starting treatment. “We did not observe thrombotic or vascular events in our cohorts, but most of the patients were receiving low molecular weight heparin,” he said.

The fact that baricitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is already well studied for safety, can be taken conveniently as a once-daily oral tablet, and is less expensive than many other antiviral treatments all make it an good target for further study, including randomized, controlled trials that are already underway, Dr. Stebbing noted. His study cohort also included elderly patients (median age, 81 years) who are the most likely to experience severe disease or death from COVID-19.

The National Library of Medicine’s clinicaltrials.gov registry of federally funded clinical studies lists 15 current research initiatives involving baricitinib and COVID-19. Dr. Stebbing suggested that data generated so far are helping to guide ongoing studies on dose and duration of treatment – in other words, who it works for, when to give it, and at what dose it should be taken and for how long.

Manufacturer Eli Lilly, which markets baricitinib in 2-mg or 4-mg tablets, announced in October that initial data are starting to emerge from 1,000-plus patients enrolled in ACTT-2 (the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2). ACTT-2 compared patients on the broad-spectrum intravenous antiviral drug remdesivir (Veklury) with those receiving remdesivir in combination with baricitinib. Based on ACTT-2 results that suggested a reduced time to recovery and improved clinical outcomes for the combination group, the FDA issued an emergency-use authorization on Nov. 19 for the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir for the treatment of suspected or laboratory confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Interrupting the cytokine outbreak

Baricitinib has the potential to reduce or interrupt the passage of SARS-CoV-2 into cells, and thus to inhibit the JAK1- and JAK2-mediated cytokine outbreak, researcher Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University of Southern California’s Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, said in a comment. Baricitinib was also identified, using BenevolentAI’s proprietary, artificial intelligence-derived knowledge graph, as a numb-associated kinase inhibitor, with high affinity for AP2-associated protein kinase 1, an important endocytosis regulator.

Early clinical data suggest a potent biologic effect of baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg daily on circulating interleukin-6 levels and other inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein. Dr. Lenz said the evidence for advantageous action of baricitinib on viral endocytosis and excessive cytokine release constitutes the rationale for using it in combination with other antivirals such as remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 illness.

“Although baricitinib may display antiviral activity on its own, its anti-inflammatory effects could hypothetically delay viral clearance,” Dr. Lenz added. “The data from Stebbing et al. confirm the dual actions of baricitinib, demonstrating its ability to inhibit viral entry into primary human hepatocyte spheroids and the reduction in inflammatory markers in COVID-19 patients.”

Other JAK inhibitors were not advanced as promising candidates for the research team’s attention by its artificial intelligence search, Dr. Stebbing noted. “The history of the pandemic has taught us the importance of well-designed observational studies as well as randomized, controlled trials. When it comes to COVID, pyrite looks much like gold, as failed studies of four antivirals have shown.”

Although the current translational research study did not use a placebo group, it is an important next step toward future randomized, controlled trials. “What’s great about this study is its high degree of collaboration, done with real urgency,” he added. “It’s harder to produce a paper that crosses multiple boundaries, like this one does, than a single-focused piece of work. But we wanted to link all of these threads together.”

The study was supported by the Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the U.K. National Health Service’s Accelerated Access Collaborative. Dr. Stebbing has served on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly and other companies. Dr. Lenz had no relevant disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Stebbing J et al. Sci Adv. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4724.

It should not be surprising that the RA drug baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, might be beneficial in controlling the cytokine storm of hyperinflammation that can follow severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and lead to lung damage and acute respiratory distress syndrome – the leading cause of death from the virus.

But to demonstrate within a matter of months, at least preliminarily, that baricitinib reduces mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia required a widely cross-disciplinary international team of researchers from 10 countries working at breakneck speed, said Justin Stebbing, PhD, the principal investigator of a new baricitinib study published Nov. 13 in Science Advances. “We went from modeling and mechanistic investigations to clinical tests in a number of settings and laboratory analysis in record time.”

The international team of 50 researchers included medical specialists in rheumatology, virology, geriatrics, oncology, and general medicine, along with experts in molecular and cellular biology, bioinformatics, statistics and trial design, computer modeling, pathology, genetics, and super-resolution microscopy, Dr. Stebbing, professor of cancer medicine and medical oncology at Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

Artificial intelligence, provided by the London-based firm BenevolentAI, was used to sift through a huge repository of structured medical information to identify drugs that might block the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. It predicted that baricitinib would be a promising candidate to inhibit inflammation and reduce viral load in COVID-19. Previous reports by Dr. Stebbing and colleagues (here and here) describe this AI-mediated testing, which was validated by the new study.

The researchers also used three-dimensional miniature human liver organoids in vitro and super-resolution microscopy to perform further lab investigations, which showed that baricitinib reversed expression of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 triggered by type I interferons. Baricitinib inhibited the significant increase in ACE2 expression caused by interferon alpha-2, and thus cytokine-mediated inflammation, and also reduced infectivity, Dr. Stebbing said. “Our study of baricitinib shows that it has both antiviral and anticytokine effects and appears to be safe.”
 

71% mortality reduction

The team found a 71% reduction in mortality for a group of 83 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Italy and Spain – early epicenters of the pandemic – who received baricitinib along with standard care, compared with propensity-matched groups that received only standard care. At that time, between mid-March and mid-April, standard COVID-19 care included antibiotics, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir.

In the Spanish and Italian cohorts, baricitinib was generally well tolerated, although not without side effects, including bacterial infections and increases in liver enzyme levels, which may not have been related to baricitinib. Patients showed reductions in inflammation within days of starting treatment. “We did not observe thrombotic or vascular events in our cohorts, but most of the patients were receiving low molecular weight heparin,” he said.

The fact that baricitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is already well studied for safety, can be taken conveniently as a once-daily oral tablet, and is less expensive than many other antiviral treatments all make it an good target for further study, including randomized, controlled trials that are already underway, Dr. Stebbing noted. His study cohort also included elderly patients (median age, 81 years) who are the most likely to experience severe disease or death from COVID-19.

The National Library of Medicine’s clinicaltrials.gov registry of federally funded clinical studies lists 15 current research initiatives involving baricitinib and COVID-19. Dr. Stebbing suggested that data generated so far are helping to guide ongoing studies on dose and duration of treatment – in other words, who it works for, when to give it, and at what dose it should be taken and for how long.

Manufacturer Eli Lilly, which markets baricitinib in 2-mg or 4-mg tablets, announced in October that initial data are starting to emerge from 1,000-plus patients enrolled in ACTT-2 (the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2). ACTT-2 compared patients on the broad-spectrum intravenous antiviral drug remdesivir (Veklury) with those receiving remdesivir in combination with baricitinib. Based on ACTT-2 results that suggested a reduced time to recovery and improved clinical outcomes for the combination group, the FDA issued an emergency-use authorization on Nov. 19 for the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir for the treatment of suspected or laboratory confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Interrupting the cytokine outbreak

Baricitinib has the potential to reduce or interrupt the passage of SARS-CoV-2 into cells, and thus to inhibit the JAK1- and JAK2-mediated cytokine outbreak, researcher Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University of Southern California’s Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, said in a comment. Baricitinib was also identified, using BenevolentAI’s proprietary, artificial intelligence-derived knowledge graph, as a numb-associated kinase inhibitor, with high affinity for AP2-associated protein kinase 1, an important endocytosis regulator.

Early clinical data suggest a potent biologic effect of baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg daily on circulating interleukin-6 levels and other inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein. Dr. Lenz said the evidence for advantageous action of baricitinib on viral endocytosis and excessive cytokine release constitutes the rationale for using it in combination with other antivirals such as remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 illness.

“Although baricitinib may display antiviral activity on its own, its anti-inflammatory effects could hypothetically delay viral clearance,” Dr. Lenz added. “The data from Stebbing et al. confirm the dual actions of baricitinib, demonstrating its ability to inhibit viral entry into primary human hepatocyte spheroids and the reduction in inflammatory markers in COVID-19 patients.”

Other JAK inhibitors were not advanced as promising candidates for the research team’s attention by its artificial intelligence search, Dr. Stebbing noted. “The history of the pandemic has taught us the importance of well-designed observational studies as well as randomized, controlled trials. When it comes to COVID, pyrite looks much like gold, as failed studies of four antivirals have shown.”

Although the current translational research study did not use a placebo group, it is an important next step toward future randomized, controlled trials. “What’s great about this study is its high degree of collaboration, done with real urgency,” he added. “It’s harder to produce a paper that crosses multiple boundaries, like this one does, than a single-focused piece of work. But we wanted to link all of these threads together.”

The study was supported by the Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the U.K. National Health Service’s Accelerated Access Collaborative. Dr. Stebbing has served on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly and other companies. Dr. Lenz had no relevant disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Stebbing J et al. Sci Adv. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4724.

It should not be surprising that the RA drug baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, might be beneficial in controlling the cytokine storm of hyperinflammation that can follow severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and lead to lung damage and acute respiratory distress syndrome – the leading cause of death from the virus.

But to demonstrate within a matter of months, at least preliminarily, that baricitinib reduces mortality and morbidity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia required a widely cross-disciplinary international team of researchers from 10 countries working at breakneck speed, said Justin Stebbing, PhD, the principal investigator of a new baricitinib study published Nov. 13 in Science Advances. “We went from modeling and mechanistic investigations to clinical tests in a number of settings and laboratory analysis in record time.”

The international team of 50 researchers included medical specialists in rheumatology, virology, geriatrics, oncology, and general medicine, along with experts in molecular and cellular biology, bioinformatics, statistics and trial design, computer modeling, pathology, genetics, and super-resolution microscopy, Dr. Stebbing, professor of cancer medicine and medical oncology at Imperial College, London, said in an interview.

Artificial intelligence, provided by the London-based firm BenevolentAI, was used to sift through a huge repository of structured medical information to identify drugs that might block the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. It predicted that baricitinib would be a promising candidate to inhibit inflammation and reduce viral load in COVID-19. Previous reports by Dr. Stebbing and colleagues (here and here) describe this AI-mediated testing, which was validated by the new study.

The researchers also used three-dimensional miniature human liver organoids in vitro and super-resolution microscopy to perform further lab investigations, which showed that baricitinib reversed expression of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 triggered by type I interferons. Baricitinib inhibited the significant increase in ACE2 expression caused by interferon alpha-2, and thus cytokine-mediated inflammation, and also reduced infectivity, Dr. Stebbing said. “Our study of baricitinib shows that it has both antiviral and anticytokine effects and appears to be safe.”
 

71% mortality reduction

The team found a 71% reduction in mortality for a group of 83 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Italy and Spain – early epicenters of the pandemic – who received baricitinib along with standard care, compared with propensity-matched groups that received only standard care. At that time, between mid-March and mid-April, standard COVID-19 care included antibiotics, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, low-molecular-weight heparin, and the antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir.

In the Spanish and Italian cohorts, baricitinib was generally well tolerated, although not without side effects, including bacterial infections and increases in liver enzyme levels, which may not have been related to baricitinib. Patients showed reductions in inflammation within days of starting treatment. “We did not observe thrombotic or vascular events in our cohorts, but most of the patients were receiving low molecular weight heparin,” he said.

The fact that baricitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, is already well studied for safety, can be taken conveniently as a once-daily oral tablet, and is less expensive than many other antiviral treatments all make it an good target for further study, including randomized, controlled trials that are already underway, Dr. Stebbing noted. His study cohort also included elderly patients (median age, 81 years) who are the most likely to experience severe disease or death from COVID-19.

The National Library of Medicine’s clinicaltrials.gov registry of federally funded clinical studies lists 15 current research initiatives involving baricitinib and COVID-19. Dr. Stebbing suggested that data generated so far are helping to guide ongoing studies on dose and duration of treatment – in other words, who it works for, when to give it, and at what dose it should be taken and for how long.

Manufacturer Eli Lilly, which markets baricitinib in 2-mg or 4-mg tablets, announced in October that initial data are starting to emerge from 1,000-plus patients enrolled in ACTT-2 (the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2). ACTT-2 compared patients on the broad-spectrum intravenous antiviral drug remdesivir (Veklury) with those receiving remdesivir in combination with baricitinib. Based on ACTT-2 results that suggested a reduced time to recovery and improved clinical outcomes for the combination group, the FDA issued an emergency-use authorization on Nov. 19 for the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir for the treatment of suspected or laboratory confirmed COVID-19 in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients aged 2 years or older requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Interrupting the cytokine outbreak

Baricitinib has the potential to reduce or interrupt the passage of SARS-CoV-2 into cells, and thus to inhibit the JAK1- and JAK2-mediated cytokine outbreak, researcher Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at the University of Southern California’s Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, said in a comment. Baricitinib was also identified, using BenevolentAI’s proprietary, artificial intelligence-derived knowledge graph, as a numb-associated kinase inhibitor, with high affinity for AP2-associated protein kinase 1, an important endocytosis regulator.

Early clinical data suggest a potent biologic effect of baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg daily on circulating interleukin-6 levels and other inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein. Dr. Lenz said the evidence for advantageous action of baricitinib on viral endocytosis and excessive cytokine release constitutes the rationale for using it in combination with other antivirals such as remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 illness.

“Although baricitinib may display antiviral activity on its own, its anti-inflammatory effects could hypothetically delay viral clearance,” Dr. Lenz added. “The data from Stebbing et al. confirm the dual actions of baricitinib, demonstrating its ability to inhibit viral entry into primary human hepatocyte spheroids and the reduction in inflammatory markers in COVID-19 patients.”

Other JAK inhibitors were not advanced as promising candidates for the research team’s attention by its artificial intelligence search, Dr. Stebbing noted. “The history of the pandemic has taught us the importance of well-designed observational studies as well as randomized, controlled trials. When it comes to COVID, pyrite looks much like gold, as failed studies of four antivirals have shown.”

Although the current translational research study did not use a placebo group, it is an important next step toward future randomized, controlled trials. “What’s great about this study is its high degree of collaboration, done with real urgency,” he added. “It’s harder to produce a paper that crosses multiple boundaries, like this one does, than a single-focused piece of work. But we wanted to link all of these threads together.”

The study was supported by the Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the U.K. National Health Service’s Accelerated Access Collaborative. Dr. Stebbing has served on scientific advisory boards for Eli Lilly and other companies. Dr. Lenz had no relevant disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Stebbing J et al. Sci Adv. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4724.