Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

A phase 3 trial has associated the neurokinin-3 (NK3)–receptor inhibitor fezolinetant, an oral therapy taken once daily, with substantial control over the symptoms of menopause, according to results of the randomized SKYLIGHT 2 trial.

The nonhormonal therapy has the potential to address an important unmet need, Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The health risks of hormone therapy (HT) have “caused quite a few women to consider whether hormone replacement is right for them, and, in addition, there are other individuals who have hormone-responsive cancers or other disorders that might prohibit them [from using HT],” Dr. Neal-Perry said.

The NK3 receptor stimulates the thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus. By blocking the NK3 receptor, vasodilation and other downstream effects are inhibited, explained Dr. Neal-Perry. She credited relatively recent advances in understanding the mechanisms of menopausal symptoms for identifying this and other potentially targetable mediators.

SKYLIGHT 2 trial: Two phases

In the double-blind multinational phase 3 SKYLIGHT 2 trial, 484 otherwise healthy symptomatic menopausal women were randomized to 30 mg of fezolinetant, 45 mg of fezolinetant, or placebo. The 120 participating centers were in North American and Europe.

In the first phase, safety and efficacy were evaluated over 12 weeks. In a second extension phase, placebo patients were rerandomized to one of the fezolinetant study doses. Those on active therapy remained in their assigned groups. All patients were then followed for an additional 40 weeks.

The coprimary endpoints were frequency and severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms as reported by patients using an electronic diary. There were several secondary endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes regarding sleep quality.

As expected from other controlled trials, placebo patients achieved about a 40% reduction in moderate to severe vasomotor symptom frequency over the first 12 weeks. Relative to placebo, symptom frequency declined more quickly and steeply on fezolinetant. By week 12, both achieved reductions of about 60%. Statistical P values for the differences in the three arms were not provided, but Dr. Neal-Perry reported they were significant.

Vasomotor severity, like frequency, is reduced

The change in vasomotor severity, which subjects in the trial rated as better or worse, was also significant. The differences in the severity curves were less, but they separated in favor of the two active treatment arms by about 2 weeks, and the curves continued to show an advantage for fezolinetant over both the first 12 weeks and then the remaining 40 weeks.

Overall, the decline in vasomotor symptom frequency remained on a persistent downward slope on both doses of fezolinetant for the full 52 weeks of the study, so that the reduction at 52 weeks was on the order of 25% greater than that seen at 12 weeks.

At 52 weeks, “you can see that individuals on placebo who were crossed over to an active treatment had a significant reduction in their hot flashes and look very much like those who were randomized to fezolinetant at the beginning of the study,” said Dr. Neal-Perry, who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Other outcomes also favored fezolinetant over placebo. For example, a reduction in sleep disturbance observed at 12 weeks was sustained over the full 52 weeks of the study. The reduction in sleep symptoms appeared to be slightly greater on the higher dose, but the benefit at 52 weeks among patients after the crossover was similar on either active arm.

No serious side effects identified

There were no serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events in any treatment group. One patient in the placebo arm (< 1%), two patients in the 30-mg fezolinetant arm (1.2%), and five patients in the 45-mg arm (3%) discontinued therapy for an adverse event considered to be treatment related.

“The most common side effect associated with fezolinetant was headache. There were no other side effects that led patients to pull out of the study,” Dr. Neal-Perry reported at the meeting, which was held in Atlanta and virtually.

According to Dr. Neal-Perry the vasomotor symptoms relative to menopause, which occur in almost all women, are moderate to severe in an estimated 35%-45%. Some groups, such as those with an elevated body mass index and African Americans, appear to be at even greater risk. Study enrollment was specifically designed to include these high-risk groups, but the subgroup efficacy data have not yet been analyzed.

Other drugs with a similar mechanism of action have not been brought forward because of concern about elevated liver enzymes, but Dr. Neal-Perry said that this does not appear to be an issue for fezolinetant, which was designed with greater specificity for the NK3 target than previous treatments.

If fezolinetant is approved, Dr. Neal-Perry expects this agent to fulfill an important unmet need because of the limitations of other nonhormonal solutions for control of menopause symptoms.

HT alternatives limited

For control of many menopause symptoms, particularly hot flashes, hormone therapy (HT) is the most efficacious, but Richard J. Santen, MD, emeritus professor and an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, agreed there is a need for alternatives.

In addition to those who have contraindications for HT, Dr. Santen said in an interview that this option is not acceptable to others “for a variety of reasons.” The problem is that the alternatives are limited.

“The SSRI agents and gabapentin are alternative nonhormonal agents, but they have side effects and are not as effective,” he said. Hot flashes “can be a major disruptor of quality of life,” so he is intrigued with the positive results achieved with fezolinetant.

“A new drug such as reported at the Endocrine Society meeting would be an important new addition to the armamentarium,” he said.

Dr. Neal-Perry reports no conflicts of interest.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing physical and mental health care to more than 9 million veterans enrolled each year through a national system of inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings.¹ As 1 of 4 statutory missions, the VA conducts the largest training effort for health professionals in cooperation with affiliated academic institutions. From 2016 through 2020, an average of 123,000 trainees from various professions received training at the VA.² Physician residents comprised the largest trainee group (37%), followed by associated health students and residents (20%), and nursing professionals (21%).² In VA, associated health professions include all health care disciplines other than allopathic and osteopathic medicine, dentistry, and nursing. The associated health professions encompass about 40 specialties, including audiology, dietetics, physical and occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, psychology, and social work. 

The VA also trains a smaller number of advanced fellows to address specialties important to the nation and veterans health that are not sufficiently addressed by standard accredited professional training.³ The VA Advanced Fellowship programs include 22 postresidency, postdoctoral, and postmasters fellowships to physicians and dentists, and associated health professions, including psychologists, social workers, and pharmacists. 3 From 2015 to 2019, 57 to 61% of medical school students reported having a VA clinical training experience during medical school^.4 Of current VA employees, 20% of registered nurses, 64% of physicians, 73% of podiatrists and optometrists, and 81% of psychologists reported VA training prior to employment.⁵

Health professions education is led by the designated education officer (DEO) at each VA facility.⁶ Also known as the associate chief of staff for education (ACOS/E), the DEO is a leadership position that is accountable to local VA facility executive leadership as well as the national Office of Academic Affiliations (OAA), which directs all VA health professions training across the US.⁶ At most VA facilities, the DEO oversees clinical training and education reporting directly to the facility chief of staff. At the same time, the ACOS/E is accountable to the OAA to ensure adherence with national education directives and policy. The DEO oversees trainee programs through collaboration with training program directors, faculty, academic affiliates, and accreditation agencies across > 40 health professions.

The DEO is expected to possess expertise in leadership attributes identified by the US Office of Personnel Management as essential to build a federal corporate culture that drives results, serves customers, and builds successful teams and coalitions within and outside the VA.7 These leadership attributes include leading change, leading people, driving results, business acumen, and building coalitions.⁷ They are operationalized by OAA as 4 domains of expertise required to lead education across multiple professions, including: (1) creating and sustaining an organizational work environment that supports learning, discovery, and continuous improvement; (2) aligning and managing fiscal, human, and capital resources to meet organizational learning needs; (3) driving learning and performance results to impact organizational success; and (4) leading change and transformation through positioning and implementing innovative learning and education strategies (Table 1).⁶

In this article we describe the VA DEO leadership role and the tasks required to lead education across multiple professions within the VA health care system. Given the broad scope of leading educational programs across multiple clinical professions and the interprofessional backgrounds of DEOs across the VA, we evaluated DEO self-perceived effectiveness to impact educational decisions and behavior by professional discipline. Our evaluation question is: Are different professional education and practice backgrounds functionally capable of providing leadership over all education of health professions training programs? Finally, we describe DEOs perceptions of facilitators and barriers to performing their DEO role within the VA.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods analysis of data collected by OAA to assess DEO needs within a multiprofessional clinical learning environment. The needs assessment was conducted by an OAA evaluator (NH) with input on instrument development and data analysis from OAA leadership (KS, MB). This evaluation is categorized as an operations activity based on VA Handbook 1200 where information generated is used for business operations and quality improvement. ⁸ The overall project was subject to administrative rather than institutional review board oversight.

A needs assessment tool was developed based on the OAA domains of expertise.⁶ Prior to its administration, the tool was piloted with 8 DEOs in the field and the survey shortened based on their feedback. DEOs were asked about individual professional characteristics (eg, clinical profession, academic appointment, type of health professions training programs at the VA site) and their self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions and behaviors on general and profession-specific tasks within each of the 4 domains of expertise on a 5-point Likert scale (1, not effective; 5, very effective). 6,9 The needs assessment also included an open-ended question asking respondents to comment on any issues they felt important to understanding DEO role effectiveness.

The needs assessment was administered online via SurveyMonkey to 132 DEOs via email in September and October 2019. The DEOs represented 148 of 160 VA facilities with health professions education; 14 DEOs covered > 1 VA facility, and 12 positions were vacant. Email reminders were sent to nonresponders after 1 week. At 2 weeks, nonresponders received telephone reminders and personalized follow-up emails from OAA staff. The response rate at the end of 3 weeks was 96%.

Data Analysis

Mixed methods analyses included quantitative analyses to identify differences in general and profession-specific self-ratings of effectiveness in influencing educational decisions and behaviors by DEO profession, and qualitative analyses to further understand DEO’s perceptions of facilitators and barriers to DEO task effectiveness.^10,11 Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics for all variables followed by nonparametric tests including χ2 and Mann- Whitney U tests to assess differences between physician and other professional DEOs in descriptive characteristics and selfperceived effectiveness on general and profession- specific tasks. Quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 26. Qualitative analyses consisted of rapid assessment procedures to identify facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness by profession using Atlas.ti version 8, which involved reviewing responses to the open-ended question and assigning each response to predetermined categories based on the organizational level it applied to (eg, individual DEO, VA facility, or external to the organization).^12,13 Responses within categories were then summarized to identify the main themes.

Results 

Completed surveys were received from 127 respondents representing 139 VA facilities. Eighty percent were physicians and 20% were other professionals, including psychologists, pharmacists, dentists, dieticians, nurses, and nonclinicians. There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs in the percent working full time or length of time spent working in the position. About one-third of the sample had been in the position for < 2 years, one-third had been in the position for 2 to < 5 years, and one-third had been in the role for ≥ 5 years. Eighty percent reported having a faculty appointment with an academic affiliate. While 92% of physician DEOs had a faculty appointment, only 40% of other professional DEOs did (P < .001). Most faculty appointments for both groups were with a school of medicine. More physician DEOs than other professionals had training programs at their site for physicians (P = .003) and dentists (P < .001), but there were no statistically significant differences for having associated health, nursing, or advanced fellowship training programs at their sites. Across all DEOs, 98% reported training programs at their site for associated health professions, 95% for physician training, 93% for nursing training, 59% for dental training, and 48% for advanced fellowships.

Self-Perceived Effectiveness

There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs on self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions or behaviors for general tasks applicable across professions (Table 2). This result held even after controlling for length of time in the position and whether the DEO had an academic appointment. Generally, both groups reported being effective on tasks in the enabling learning domain, including applying policies and procedures related to trainees who rotate through the VA and maintaining adherence with accreditation agency standards across health professions. Mean score ranges for both physician and other professional DEOs reported moderate effectiveness in aligning resources effectiveness questions (2.45-3.72 vs 2.75-3.76), driving results questions (3.02-3.60 vs 3.39-3.48), and leading change questions (3.12-3.50 vs 3.42-3.80).

For profession-specific tasks, effectiveness ratings between the 2 groups were generally not statistically significant for medical, dental, and advanced fellowship training programs (Table 3). There was a pattern of statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs for associated health and nursing training programs on tasks across the 4 domains of expertise with physicians having lower mean ratings compared with other professionals. Generally, physician DEOs had higher task effectiveness when compared with other professionals for medical training programs, and other professionals had higher task effectiveness ratings than did physicians for associated health or nursing training programs.

Facilitators and Barriers

Seventy responses related to facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness were received (59 from physicians and 11 from other professionals). Most responses were categorized as individual level facilitators or barriers (53% for physician and 64% for other professionals). Only 3% of comments were categorized as external to the organization (all made by physicians). The themes were similar for both groups and were aggregated in Table 4. Facilitators included continuing education, having a mentor who works at a similar type of facility, maintaining balance and time management when working with different training programs, learning to work and develop relationships with training program directors, developing an overall picture of each type of health professions training program, holding regular meetings with all health training programs and academic affiliates, having a formal education service line with budget and staffing, facility executive leadership who are knowledgeable of the education mission and DEO role, having a national oversight body, and the DEO’s relationships with academic affiliates.

Barriers to role effectiveness at the individual DEO level included assignment of multiple roles and a focus on regulation and monitoring with little time for development of new programs and strategic planning. The organizational level barriers included difficulty getting core services to engage with health professions trainees and siloed education leadership. 

Discussion

DEOs oversee multiple health professions training programs within local facilities. The DEO is accountable to local VA facility leadership and a national education office to lead local health professions education at local facilities and integrate these educational activities across the national VA system.

The VA DEO role is similar to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education designated institutional official (DIO) except that the VA DEO provides oversight of > 40 health professions training programs^.14,15 The VA DEO, therefore, has broader oversight than the DIO role that focuses only on graduate physician education. Similar to the DIO, the VA DEO role initially emphasized the enabling learning and aligning resources domains to provide oversight and administration of health professions training programs. Over time, both roles have expanded to include defining and ensuring healthy clinical learning environments, aligning educational resources and training with the institutional mission, workforce, and societal needs, and creating continuous educational improvement models.^6,16,17 To accomplish these expanded goals, both the DEO and the DIO work closely with other educational leaders at the academic affiliate and the VA facility. As health professions education advances, there will be increased emphasis placed on delivering educational programs to improve clinical practice and health care outcomes.¹⁸

Our findings that DEO profession did not influence self-ratings of effectiveness to influence educational decisions or behaviors on general tasks applicable across health professions suggest that education and practice background are not factors influencing selfratings. Nor were self-ratings influenced by other factors. Since the DEO is a senior leadership position, candidates for the position already may possess managerial and leadership skills. In our sample, several individuals commented that they had prior education leadership positions, eg, training program director or had years of experience working in the VA. Similarly, having an academic appointment may not be important for the performance of general administrative tasks. However, an academic appointment may be important for effective performance of educational tasks, such as clinical teaching, didactic training, and curriculum development, which were not measured in this study.

The finding of differences in self-ratings between physicians and other professionals on profession-specific tasks for associated health and nursing suggests that physicians may require additional curriculum to enhance their knowledge in managing other professional educational programs. For nursing specifically, this finding could also reflect substantial input from the lead nurse executive in the facility. DEOs also identified practical ways to facilitate their work with multiple health professions that could immediately be put into practice, including developing relationships and enhancing communication with training program directors, faculty, and academic affiliates of each profession.

Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that despite differences in professional backgrounds, DEOs have high self-ratings of their own effectiveness to influence educational decisions and behaviors on general tasks they are expected to accomplish. There are some professionspecific tasks where professional background does influence self-perceived effectiveness, ie, physicians have higher self-ratings on physician-specific tasks and other professionals have higher self-ratings on associated health or nursing tasks. These perceived differences may be mitigated by increasing facilitators and decreasing barriers identified for the individual DEO, within the organization, and external to the organization.

Limitations Our findings should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. The selfreport nature of the data opens the possibility of self-report bias or Dunning-Kruger effects where effectiveness ratings could have been overestimated by respondents.21 Although respondents were assured of their anonymity and that results would only be reported in the aggregate, there is potential for providing more positive responses on a needs assessment administered by the national education program office. We recommend further work be conducted to validate the needs assessment tool against other data collection methods, such as actual outcomes of educational effectiveness. Our study did not incorporate measures of educational effectiveness to determine whether self-perceived DEO effectiveness is translated to better trainee or learning outcomes. Before this can happen, educational policymakers must identify the most important facility-level learning outcomes. Since the DEO is a facility level educational administrator, learning efeffectiveness must be defined at the facility level. The qualitative findings could also be expanded through the application of more detailed qualitative methods, such as indepth interviews. The tasks rated by DEOs were based on OAA’s current definition of the DEO role.6 As the field advances, DEO tasks will also evolve.^22-24

Conclusions

The DEO is a senior educational leadership role that oversees all health professions training in the VA. Our findings are supportive of individuals from various health disciplines serving in the VA DEO role with responsibilities that span multiple health profession training programs. We recommend further work to validate the instrument used in this study, as well as the application of qualitative methods like indepth interviews to further our understanding of the DEO role.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing physical and mental health care to more than 9 million veterans enrolled each year through a national system of inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings.¹ As 1 of 4 statutory missions, the VA conducts the largest training effort for health professionals in cooperation with affiliated academic institutions. From 2016 through 2020, an average of 123,000 trainees from various professions received training at the VA.² Physician residents comprised the largest trainee group (37%), followed by associated health students and residents (20%), and nursing professionals (21%).² In VA, associated health professions include all health care disciplines other than allopathic and osteopathic medicine, dentistry, and nursing. The associated health professions encompass about 40 specialties, including audiology, dietetics, physical and occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, psychology, and social work. 

The VA also trains a smaller number of advanced fellows to address specialties important to the nation and veterans health that are not sufficiently addressed by standard accredited professional training.³ The VA Advanced Fellowship programs include 22 postresidency, postdoctoral, and postmasters fellowships to physicians and dentists, and associated health professions, including psychologists, social workers, and pharmacists. 3 From 2015 to 2019, 57 to 61% of medical school students reported having a VA clinical training experience during medical school^.4 Of current VA employees, 20% of registered nurses, 64% of physicians, 73% of podiatrists and optometrists, and 81% of psychologists reported VA training prior to employment.⁵

Health professions education is led by the designated education officer (DEO) at each VA facility.⁶ Also known as the associate chief of staff for education (ACOS/E), the DEO is a leadership position that is accountable to local VA facility executive leadership as well as the national Office of Academic Affiliations (OAA), which directs all VA health professions training across the US.⁶ At most VA facilities, the DEO oversees clinical training and education reporting directly to the facility chief of staff. At the same time, the ACOS/E is accountable to the OAA to ensure adherence with national education directives and policy. The DEO oversees trainee programs through collaboration with training program directors, faculty, academic affiliates, and accreditation agencies across > 40 health professions.

The DEO is expected to possess expertise in leadership attributes identified by the US Office of Personnel Management as essential to build a federal corporate culture that drives results, serves customers, and builds successful teams and coalitions within and outside the VA.7 These leadership attributes include leading change, leading people, driving results, business acumen, and building coalitions.⁷ They are operationalized by OAA as 4 domains of expertise required to lead education across multiple professions, including: (1) creating and sustaining an organizational work environment that supports learning, discovery, and continuous improvement; (2) aligning and managing fiscal, human, and capital resources to meet organizational learning needs; (3) driving learning and performance results to impact organizational success; and (4) leading change and transformation through positioning and implementing innovative learning and education strategies (Table 1).⁶

In this article we describe the VA DEO leadership role and the tasks required to lead education across multiple professions within the VA health care system. Given the broad scope of leading educational programs across multiple clinical professions and the interprofessional backgrounds of DEOs across the VA, we evaluated DEO self-perceived effectiveness to impact educational decisions and behavior by professional discipline. Our evaluation question is: Are different professional education and practice backgrounds functionally capable of providing leadership over all education of health professions training programs? Finally, we describe DEOs perceptions of facilitators and barriers to performing their DEO role within the VA.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods analysis of data collected by OAA to assess DEO needs within a multiprofessional clinical learning environment. The needs assessment was conducted by an OAA evaluator (NH) with input on instrument development and data analysis from OAA leadership (KS, MB). This evaluation is categorized as an operations activity based on VA Handbook 1200 where information generated is used for business operations and quality improvement. ⁸ The overall project was subject to administrative rather than institutional review board oversight.

A needs assessment tool was developed based on the OAA domains of expertise.⁶ Prior to its administration, the tool was piloted with 8 DEOs in the field and the survey shortened based on their feedback. DEOs were asked about individual professional characteristics (eg, clinical profession, academic appointment, type of health professions training programs at the VA site) and their self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions and behaviors on general and profession-specific tasks within each of the 4 domains of expertise on a 5-point Likert scale (1, not effective; 5, very effective). 6,9 The needs assessment also included an open-ended question asking respondents to comment on any issues they felt important to understanding DEO role effectiveness.

The needs assessment was administered online via SurveyMonkey to 132 DEOs via email in September and October 2019. The DEOs represented 148 of 160 VA facilities with health professions education; 14 DEOs covered > 1 VA facility, and 12 positions were vacant. Email reminders were sent to nonresponders after 1 week. At 2 weeks, nonresponders received telephone reminders and personalized follow-up emails from OAA staff. The response rate at the end of 3 weeks was 96%.

Data Analysis

Mixed methods analyses included quantitative analyses to identify differences in general and profession-specific self-ratings of effectiveness in influencing educational decisions and behaviors by DEO profession, and qualitative analyses to further understand DEO’s perceptions of facilitators and barriers to DEO task effectiveness.^10,11 Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics for all variables followed by nonparametric tests including χ2 and Mann- Whitney U tests to assess differences between physician and other professional DEOs in descriptive characteristics and selfperceived effectiveness on general and profession- specific tasks. Quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 26. Qualitative analyses consisted of rapid assessment procedures to identify facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness by profession using Atlas.ti version 8, which involved reviewing responses to the open-ended question and assigning each response to predetermined categories based on the organizational level it applied to (eg, individual DEO, VA facility, or external to the organization).^12,13 Responses within categories were then summarized to identify the main themes.

Results 

Completed surveys were received from 127 respondents representing 139 VA facilities. Eighty percent were physicians and 20% were other professionals, including psychologists, pharmacists, dentists, dieticians, nurses, and nonclinicians. There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs in the percent working full time or length of time spent working in the position. About one-third of the sample had been in the position for < 2 years, one-third had been in the position for 2 to < 5 years, and one-third had been in the role for ≥ 5 years. Eighty percent reported having a faculty appointment with an academic affiliate. While 92% of physician DEOs had a faculty appointment, only 40% of other professional DEOs did (P < .001). Most faculty appointments for both groups were with a school of medicine. More physician DEOs than other professionals had training programs at their site for physicians (P = .003) and dentists (P < .001), but there were no statistically significant differences for having associated health, nursing, or advanced fellowship training programs at their sites. Across all DEOs, 98% reported training programs at their site for associated health professions, 95% for physician training, 93% for nursing training, 59% for dental training, and 48% for advanced fellowships.

Self-Perceived Effectiveness

There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs on self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions or behaviors for general tasks applicable across professions (Table 2). This result held even after controlling for length of time in the position and whether the DEO had an academic appointment. Generally, both groups reported being effective on tasks in the enabling learning domain, including applying policies and procedures related to trainees who rotate through the VA and maintaining adherence with accreditation agency standards across health professions. Mean score ranges for both physician and other professional DEOs reported moderate effectiveness in aligning resources effectiveness questions (2.45-3.72 vs 2.75-3.76), driving results questions (3.02-3.60 vs 3.39-3.48), and leading change questions (3.12-3.50 vs 3.42-3.80).

For profession-specific tasks, effectiveness ratings between the 2 groups were generally not statistically significant for medical, dental, and advanced fellowship training programs (Table 3). There was a pattern of statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs for associated health and nursing training programs on tasks across the 4 domains of expertise with physicians having lower mean ratings compared with other professionals. Generally, physician DEOs had higher task effectiveness when compared with other professionals for medical training programs, and other professionals had higher task effectiveness ratings than did physicians for associated health or nursing training programs.

Facilitators and Barriers

Seventy responses related to facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness were received (59 from physicians and 11 from other professionals). Most responses were categorized as individual level facilitators or barriers (53% for physician and 64% for other professionals). Only 3% of comments were categorized as external to the organization (all made by physicians). The themes were similar for both groups and were aggregated in Table 4. Facilitators included continuing education, having a mentor who works at a similar type of facility, maintaining balance and time management when working with different training programs, learning to work and develop relationships with training program directors, developing an overall picture of each type of health professions training program, holding regular meetings with all health training programs and academic affiliates, having a formal education service line with budget and staffing, facility executive leadership who are knowledgeable of the education mission and DEO role, having a national oversight body, and the DEO’s relationships with academic affiliates.

Barriers to role effectiveness at the individual DEO level included assignment of multiple roles and a focus on regulation and monitoring with little time for development of new programs and strategic planning. The organizational level barriers included difficulty getting core services to engage with health professions trainees and siloed education leadership. 

Discussion

DEOs oversee multiple health professions training programs within local facilities. The DEO is accountable to local VA facility leadership and a national education office to lead local health professions education at local facilities and integrate these educational activities across the national VA system.

The VA DEO role is similar to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education designated institutional official (DIO) except that the VA DEO provides oversight of > 40 health professions training programs^.14,15 The VA DEO, therefore, has broader oversight than the DIO role that focuses only on graduate physician education. Similar to the DIO, the VA DEO role initially emphasized the enabling learning and aligning resources domains to provide oversight and administration of health professions training programs. Over time, both roles have expanded to include defining and ensuring healthy clinical learning environments, aligning educational resources and training with the institutional mission, workforce, and societal needs, and creating continuous educational improvement models.^6,16,17 To accomplish these expanded goals, both the DEO and the DIO work closely with other educational leaders at the academic affiliate and the VA facility. As health professions education advances, there will be increased emphasis placed on delivering educational programs to improve clinical practice and health care outcomes.¹⁸

Our findings that DEO profession did not influence self-ratings of effectiveness to influence educational decisions or behaviors on general tasks applicable across health professions suggest that education and practice background are not factors influencing selfratings. Nor were self-ratings influenced by other factors. Since the DEO is a senior leadership position, candidates for the position already may possess managerial and leadership skills. In our sample, several individuals commented that they had prior education leadership positions, eg, training program director or had years of experience working in the VA. Similarly, having an academic appointment may not be important for the performance of general administrative tasks. However, an academic appointment may be important for effective performance of educational tasks, such as clinical teaching, didactic training, and curriculum development, which were not measured in this study.

The finding of differences in self-ratings between physicians and other professionals on profession-specific tasks for associated health and nursing suggests that physicians may require additional curriculum to enhance their knowledge in managing other professional educational programs. For nursing specifically, this finding could also reflect substantial input from the lead nurse executive in the facility. DEOs also identified practical ways to facilitate their work with multiple health professions that could immediately be put into practice, including developing relationships and enhancing communication with training program directors, faculty, and academic affiliates of each profession.

Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that despite differences in professional backgrounds, DEOs have high self-ratings of their own effectiveness to influence educational decisions and behaviors on general tasks they are expected to accomplish. There are some professionspecific tasks where professional background does influence self-perceived effectiveness, ie, physicians have higher self-ratings on physician-specific tasks and other professionals have higher self-ratings on associated health or nursing tasks. These perceived differences may be mitigated by increasing facilitators and decreasing barriers identified for the individual DEO, within the organization, and external to the organization.

Limitations Our findings should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. The selfreport nature of the data opens the possibility of self-report bias or Dunning-Kruger effects where effectiveness ratings could have been overestimated by respondents.21 Although respondents were assured of their anonymity and that results would only be reported in the aggregate, there is potential for providing more positive responses on a needs assessment administered by the national education program office. We recommend further work be conducted to validate the needs assessment tool against other data collection methods, such as actual outcomes of educational effectiveness. Our study did not incorporate measures of educational effectiveness to determine whether self-perceived DEO effectiveness is translated to better trainee or learning outcomes. Before this can happen, educational policymakers must identify the most important facility-level learning outcomes. Since the DEO is a facility level educational administrator, learning efeffectiveness must be defined at the facility level. The qualitative findings could also be expanded through the application of more detailed qualitative methods, such as indepth interviews. The tasks rated by DEOs were based on OAA’s current definition of the DEO role.6 As the field advances, DEO tasks will also evolve.^22-24

Conclusions

The DEO is a senior educational leadership role that oversees all health professions training in the VA. Our findings are supportive of individuals from various health disciplines serving in the VA DEO role with responsibilities that span multiple health profession training programs. We recommend further work to validate the instrument used in this study, as well as the application of qualitative methods like indepth interviews to further our understanding of the DEO role.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing physical and mental health care to more than 9 million veterans enrolled each year through a national system of inpatient, outpatient, and long-term care settings.¹ As 1 of 4 statutory missions, the VA conducts the largest training effort for health professionals in cooperation with affiliated academic institutions. From 2016 through 2020, an average of 123,000 trainees from various professions received training at the VA.² Physician residents comprised the largest trainee group (37%), followed by associated health students and residents (20%), and nursing professionals (21%).² In VA, associated health professions include all health care disciplines other than allopathic and osteopathic medicine, dentistry, and nursing. The associated health professions encompass about 40 specialties, including audiology, dietetics, physical and occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, psychology, and social work. 

The VA also trains a smaller number of advanced fellows to address specialties important to the nation and veterans health that are not sufficiently addressed by standard accredited professional training.³ The VA Advanced Fellowship programs include 22 postresidency, postdoctoral, and postmasters fellowships to physicians and dentists, and associated health professions, including psychologists, social workers, and pharmacists. 3 From 2015 to 2019, 57 to 61% of medical school students reported having a VA clinical training experience during medical school^.4 Of current VA employees, 20% of registered nurses, 64% of physicians, 73% of podiatrists and optometrists, and 81% of psychologists reported VA training prior to employment.⁵

Health professions education is led by the designated education officer (DEO) at each VA facility.⁶ Also known as the associate chief of staff for education (ACOS/E), the DEO is a leadership position that is accountable to local VA facility executive leadership as well as the national Office of Academic Affiliations (OAA), which directs all VA health professions training across the US.⁶ At most VA facilities, the DEO oversees clinical training and education reporting directly to the facility chief of staff. At the same time, the ACOS/E is accountable to the OAA to ensure adherence with national education directives and policy. The DEO oversees trainee programs through collaboration with training program directors, faculty, academic affiliates, and accreditation agencies across > 40 health professions.

The DEO is expected to possess expertise in leadership attributes identified by the US Office of Personnel Management as essential to build a federal corporate culture that drives results, serves customers, and builds successful teams and coalitions within and outside the VA.7 These leadership attributes include leading change, leading people, driving results, business acumen, and building coalitions.⁷ They are operationalized by OAA as 4 domains of expertise required to lead education across multiple professions, including: (1) creating and sustaining an organizational work environment that supports learning, discovery, and continuous improvement; (2) aligning and managing fiscal, human, and capital resources to meet organizational learning needs; (3) driving learning and performance results to impact organizational success; and (4) leading change and transformation through positioning and implementing innovative learning and education strategies (Table 1).⁶

In this article we describe the VA DEO leadership role and the tasks required to lead education across multiple professions within the VA health care system. Given the broad scope of leading educational programs across multiple clinical professions and the interprofessional backgrounds of DEOs across the VA, we evaluated DEO self-perceived effectiveness to impact educational decisions and behavior by professional discipline. Our evaluation question is: Are different professional education and practice backgrounds functionally capable of providing leadership over all education of health professions training programs? Finally, we describe DEOs perceptions of facilitators and barriers to performing their DEO role within the VA.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods analysis of data collected by OAA to assess DEO needs within a multiprofessional clinical learning environment. The needs assessment was conducted by an OAA evaluator (NH) with input on instrument development and data analysis from OAA leadership (KS, MB). This evaluation is categorized as an operations activity based on VA Handbook 1200 where information generated is used for business operations and quality improvement. ⁸ The overall project was subject to administrative rather than institutional review board oversight.

A needs assessment tool was developed based on the OAA domains of expertise.⁶ Prior to its administration, the tool was piloted with 8 DEOs in the field and the survey shortened based on their feedback. DEOs were asked about individual professional characteristics (eg, clinical profession, academic appointment, type of health professions training programs at the VA site) and their self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions and behaviors on general and profession-specific tasks within each of the 4 domains of expertise on a 5-point Likert scale (1, not effective; 5, very effective). 6,9 The needs assessment also included an open-ended question asking respondents to comment on any issues they felt important to understanding DEO role effectiveness.

The needs assessment was administered online via SurveyMonkey to 132 DEOs via email in September and October 2019. The DEOs represented 148 of 160 VA facilities with health professions education; 14 DEOs covered > 1 VA facility, and 12 positions were vacant. Email reminders were sent to nonresponders after 1 week. At 2 weeks, nonresponders received telephone reminders and personalized follow-up emails from OAA staff. The response rate at the end of 3 weeks was 96%.

Data Analysis

Mixed methods analyses included quantitative analyses to identify differences in general and profession-specific self-ratings of effectiveness in influencing educational decisions and behaviors by DEO profession, and qualitative analyses to further understand DEO’s perceptions of facilitators and barriers to DEO task effectiveness.^10,11 Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics for all variables followed by nonparametric tests including χ2 and Mann- Whitney U tests to assess differences between physician and other professional DEOs in descriptive characteristics and selfperceived effectiveness on general and profession- specific tasks. Quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS software, version 26. Qualitative analyses consisted of rapid assessment procedures to identify facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness by profession using Atlas.ti version 8, which involved reviewing responses to the open-ended question and assigning each response to predetermined categories based on the organizational level it applied to (eg, individual DEO, VA facility, or external to the organization).^12,13 Responses within categories were then summarized to identify the main themes.

Results 

Completed surveys were received from 127 respondents representing 139 VA facilities. Eighty percent were physicians and 20% were other professionals, including psychologists, pharmacists, dentists, dieticians, nurses, and nonclinicians. There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs in the percent working full time or length of time spent working in the position. About one-third of the sample had been in the position for < 2 years, one-third had been in the position for 2 to < 5 years, and one-third had been in the role for ≥ 5 years. Eighty percent reported having a faculty appointment with an academic affiliate. While 92% of physician DEOs had a faculty appointment, only 40% of other professional DEOs did (P < .001). Most faculty appointments for both groups were with a school of medicine. More physician DEOs than other professionals had training programs at their site for physicians (P = .003) and dentists (P < .001), but there were no statistically significant differences for having associated health, nursing, or advanced fellowship training programs at their sites. Across all DEOs, 98% reported training programs at their site for associated health professions, 95% for physician training, 93% for nursing training, 59% for dental training, and 48% for advanced fellowships.

Self-Perceived Effectiveness

There were no statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs on self-perceived effectiveness in impacting educational decisions or behaviors for general tasks applicable across professions (Table 2). This result held even after controlling for length of time in the position and whether the DEO had an academic appointment. Generally, both groups reported being effective on tasks in the enabling learning domain, including applying policies and procedures related to trainees who rotate through the VA and maintaining adherence with accreditation agency standards across health professions. Mean score ranges for both physician and other professional DEOs reported moderate effectiveness in aligning resources effectiveness questions (2.45-3.72 vs 2.75-3.76), driving results questions (3.02-3.60 vs 3.39-3.48), and leading change questions (3.12-3.50 vs 3.42-3.80).

For profession-specific tasks, effectiveness ratings between the 2 groups were generally not statistically significant for medical, dental, and advanced fellowship training programs (Table 3). There was a pattern of statistically significant differences between physician and other professional DEOs for associated health and nursing training programs on tasks across the 4 domains of expertise with physicians having lower mean ratings compared with other professionals. Generally, physician DEOs had higher task effectiveness when compared with other professionals for medical training programs, and other professionals had higher task effectiveness ratings than did physicians for associated health or nursing training programs.

Facilitators and Barriers

Seventy responses related to facilitators and barriers to DEO effectiveness were received (59 from physicians and 11 from other professionals). Most responses were categorized as individual level facilitators or barriers (53% for physician and 64% for other professionals). Only 3% of comments were categorized as external to the organization (all made by physicians). The themes were similar for both groups and were aggregated in Table 4. Facilitators included continuing education, having a mentor who works at a similar type of facility, maintaining balance and time management when working with different training programs, learning to work and develop relationships with training program directors, developing an overall picture of each type of health professions training program, holding regular meetings with all health training programs and academic affiliates, having a formal education service line with budget and staffing, facility executive leadership who are knowledgeable of the education mission and DEO role, having a national oversight body, and the DEO’s relationships with academic affiliates.

Barriers to role effectiveness at the individual DEO level included assignment of multiple roles and a focus on regulation and monitoring with little time for development of new programs and strategic planning. The organizational level barriers included difficulty getting core services to engage with health professions trainees and siloed education leadership. 

Discussion

DEOs oversee multiple health professions training programs within local facilities. The DEO is accountable to local VA facility leadership and a national education office to lead local health professions education at local facilities and integrate these educational activities across the national VA system.

The VA DEO role is similar to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education designated institutional official (DIO) except that the VA DEO provides oversight of > 40 health professions training programs^.14,15 The VA DEO, therefore, has broader oversight than the DIO role that focuses only on graduate physician education. Similar to the DIO, the VA DEO role initially emphasized the enabling learning and aligning resources domains to provide oversight and administration of health professions training programs. Over time, both roles have expanded to include defining and ensuring healthy clinical learning environments, aligning educational resources and training with the institutional mission, workforce, and societal needs, and creating continuous educational improvement models.^6,16,17 To accomplish these expanded goals, both the DEO and the DIO work closely with other educational leaders at the academic affiliate and the VA facility. As health professions education advances, there will be increased emphasis placed on delivering educational programs to improve clinical practice and health care outcomes.¹⁸

Our findings that DEO profession did not influence self-ratings of effectiveness to influence educational decisions or behaviors on general tasks applicable across health professions suggest that education and practice background are not factors influencing selfratings. Nor were self-ratings influenced by other factors. Since the DEO is a senior leadership position, candidates for the position already may possess managerial and leadership skills. In our sample, several individuals commented that they had prior education leadership positions, eg, training program director or had years of experience working in the VA. Similarly, having an academic appointment may not be important for the performance of general administrative tasks. However, an academic appointment may be important for effective performance of educational tasks, such as clinical teaching, didactic training, and curriculum development, which were not measured in this study.

The finding of differences in self-ratings between physicians and other professionals on profession-specific tasks for associated health and nursing suggests that physicians may require additional curriculum to enhance their knowledge in managing other professional educational programs. For nursing specifically, this finding could also reflect substantial input from the lead nurse executive in the facility. DEOs also identified practical ways to facilitate their work with multiple health professions that could immediately be put into practice, including developing relationships and enhancing communication with training program directors, faculty, and academic affiliates of each profession.

Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that despite differences in professional backgrounds, DEOs have high self-ratings of their own effectiveness to influence educational decisions and behaviors on general tasks they are expected to accomplish. There are some professionspecific tasks where professional background does influence self-perceived effectiveness, ie, physicians have higher self-ratings on physician-specific tasks and other professionals have higher self-ratings on associated health or nursing tasks. These perceived differences may be mitigated by increasing facilitators and decreasing barriers identified for the individual DEO, within the organization, and external to the organization.

Limitations Our findings should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. The selfreport nature of the data opens the possibility of self-report bias or Dunning-Kruger effects where effectiveness ratings could have been overestimated by respondents.21 Although respondents were assured of their anonymity and that results would only be reported in the aggregate, there is potential for providing more positive responses on a needs assessment administered by the national education program office. We recommend further work be conducted to validate the needs assessment tool against other data collection methods, such as actual outcomes of educational effectiveness. Our study did not incorporate measures of educational effectiveness to determine whether self-perceived DEO effectiveness is translated to better trainee or learning outcomes. Before this can happen, educational policymakers must identify the most important facility-level learning outcomes. Since the DEO is a facility level educational administrator, learning efeffectiveness must be defined at the facility level. The qualitative findings could also be expanded through the application of more detailed qualitative methods, such as indepth interviews. The tasks rated by DEOs were based on OAA’s current definition of the DEO role.6 As the field advances, DEO tasks will also evolve.^22-24

Conclusions

The DEO is a senior educational leadership role that oversees all health professions training in the VA. Our findings are supportive of individuals from various health disciplines serving in the VA DEO role with responsibilities that span multiple health profession training programs. We recommend further work to validate the instrument used in this study, as well as the application of qualitative methods like indepth interviews to further our understanding of the DEO role.

The number and rate of U.S. abortions increased between 2017 and 2020 after a 30-year decline, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.

More than 930,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2020, up 8% from 862,000 abortions in 2017. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2020, the report said.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, said the trend shows a rising need for abortion care as the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision in coming weeks.

National abortion numbers reached the lowest point in 2017 since the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized the procedure. In the years following the ruling, abortion numbers rose above 1.5 million annually throughout the 1980s and then began declining in the 1990s, though they remained above 1 million annually through the early 2010s.

The latest data show that the abortion rate increased from 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 44 in 2017 to 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2020, marking a 7% increase.

Similarly, the abortion ratio – or the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies – increased from 18.4% in 2017 to 20.6% in 2020, marking a 12% increase.

The increase in abortions was accompanied by a 6% decline in births between 2017 and 2020, the Guttmacher Institute said.

“Because there were many more births (3.6 million) than abortions (930,000) in 2020, these patterns mean that fewer people were getting pregnant and, among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion,” the institute wrote.

Medication-related abortions accounted for 54% of U.S. abortions in 2020, according to the report, which was the first time they made up more than half of abortions.

The number of abortions increased in every region of the country between 2017 and 2020, the report shows. The increases were largest in the West (12%) and Midwest (10%), followed by 8% in the South and 2% in the Northeast.

In some states – Illinois, Mississippi, and Oklahoma – there were substantial increases in the number of abortions, the institute said. In others – such as Missouri, Oregon, and North Dakota – there were substantially fewer abortions in 2020, compared with 2017.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a decline in some states. In New York, abortions increased 5% from 2017 to 2019 and then fell 6% between 2019 and 2020. About 10% of clinics in New York paused or stopped abortion care in 2020 when the pandemic started.

New laws likely affected the numbers as well. Texas had a 7% increase between 2017 and 2019, followed by a 2% decrease between 2019 and 2020, which overlapped with restrictions that deemed abortions “nonessential” health care at the beginning of the pandemic.

In contrast, some numbers may have increased because of expanded Medicaid funding. Illinois began allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in January 2018, and abortions increased 25% between 2017 and 2020.

In Missouri, abortions decreased substantially from 4,710 in 2017 to 170 in 2020, the report shows, but the number of Missouri residents who traveled to Illinois for abortions increased to more than 6,500.

Every 3 years, the Guttmacher Institute contacts U.S. facilities that provide abortions to collect information about services, including the total number of abortions. The most recent count was completed in May, representing 1,687 health care facilities that provided abortions in 2019 or 2020. A full summary of the data will be published later this year in a peer-reviewed journal article.

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

The number and rate of U.S. abortions increased between 2017 and 2020 after a 30-year decline, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.

More than 930,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2020, up 8% from 862,000 abortions in 2017. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2020, the report said.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, said the trend shows a rising need for abortion care as the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision in coming weeks.

National abortion numbers reached the lowest point in 2017 since the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized the procedure. In the years following the ruling, abortion numbers rose above 1.5 million annually throughout the 1980s and then began declining in the 1990s, though they remained above 1 million annually through the early 2010s.

The latest data show that the abortion rate increased from 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 44 in 2017 to 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2020, marking a 7% increase.

Similarly, the abortion ratio – or the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies – increased from 18.4% in 2017 to 20.6% in 2020, marking a 12% increase.

The increase in abortions was accompanied by a 6% decline in births between 2017 and 2020, the Guttmacher Institute said.

“Because there were many more births (3.6 million) than abortions (930,000) in 2020, these patterns mean that fewer people were getting pregnant and, among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion,” the institute wrote.

Medication-related abortions accounted for 54% of U.S. abortions in 2020, according to the report, which was the first time they made up more than half of abortions.

The number of abortions increased in every region of the country between 2017 and 2020, the report shows. The increases were largest in the West (12%) and Midwest (10%), followed by 8% in the South and 2% in the Northeast.

In some states – Illinois, Mississippi, and Oklahoma – there were substantial increases in the number of abortions, the institute said. In others – such as Missouri, Oregon, and North Dakota – there were substantially fewer abortions in 2020, compared with 2017.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a decline in some states. In New York, abortions increased 5% from 2017 to 2019 and then fell 6% between 2019 and 2020. About 10% of clinics in New York paused or stopped abortion care in 2020 when the pandemic started.

New laws likely affected the numbers as well. Texas had a 7% increase between 2017 and 2019, followed by a 2% decrease between 2019 and 2020, which overlapped with restrictions that deemed abortions “nonessential” health care at the beginning of the pandemic.

In contrast, some numbers may have increased because of expanded Medicaid funding. Illinois began allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in January 2018, and abortions increased 25% between 2017 and 2020.

In Missouri, abortions decreased substantially from 4,710 in 2017 to 170 in 2020, the report shows, but the number of Missouri residents who traveled to Illinois for abortions increased to more than 6,500.

Every 3 years, the Guttmacher Institute contacts U.S. facilities that provide abortions to collect information about services, including the total number of abortions. The most recent count was completed in May, representing 1,687 health care facilities that provided abortions in 2019 or 2020. A full summary of the data will be published later this year in a peer-reviewed journal article.

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

The number and rate of U.S. abortions increased between 2017 and 2020 after a 30-year decline, according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute.

More than 930,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2020, up 8% from 862,000 abortions in 2017. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2020, the report said.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, said the trend shows a rising need for abortion care as the Supreme Court is poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision in coming weeks.

National abortion numbers reached the lowest point in 2017 since the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized the procedure. In the years following the ruling, abortion numbers rose above 1.5 million annually throughout the 1980s and then began declining in the 1990s, though they remained above 1 million annually through the early 2010s.

The latest data show that the abortion rate increased from 13.5 abortions per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 44 in 2017 to 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2020, marking a 7% increase.

Similarly, the abortion ratio – or the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies – increased from 18.4% in 2017 to 20.6% in 2020, marking a 12% increase.

The increase in abortions was accompanied by a 6% decline in births between 2017 and 2020, the Guttmacher Institute said.

“Because there were many more births (3.6 million) than abortions (930,000) in 2020, these patterns mean that fewer people were getting pregnant and, among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion,” the institute wrote.

Medication-related abortions accounted for 54% of U.S. abortions in 2020, according to the report, which was the first time they made up more than half of abortions.

The number of abortions increased in every region of the country between 2017 and 2020, the report shows. The increases were largest in the West (12%) and Midwest (10%), followed by 8% in the South and 2% in the Northeast.

In some states – Illinois, Mississippi, and Oklahoma – there were substantial increases in the number of abortions, the institute said. In others – such as Missouri, Oregon, and North Dakota – there were substantially fewer abortions in 2020, compared with 2017.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a decline in some states. In New York, abortions increased 5% from 2017 to 2019 and then fell 6% between 2019 and 2020. About 10% of clinics in New York paused or stopped abortion care in 2020 when the pandemic started.

New laws likely affected the numbers as well. Texas had a 7% increase between 2017 and 2019, followed by a 2% decrease between 2019 and 2020, which overlapped with restrictions that deemed abortions “nonessential” health care at the beginning of the pandemic.

In contrast, some numbers may have increased because of expanded Medicaid funding. Illinois began allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in January 2018, and abortions increased 25% between 2017 and 2020.

In Missouri, abortions decreased substantially from 4,710 in 2017 to 170 in 2020, the report shows, but the number of Missouri residents who traveled to Illinois for abortions increased to more than 6,500.

Every 3 years, the Guttmacher Institute contacts U.S. facilities that provide abortions to collect information about services, including the total number of abortions. The most recent count was completed in May, representing 1,687 health care facilities that provided abortions in 2019 or 2020. A full summary of the data will be published later this year in a peer-reviewed journal article.

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

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.

The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.

As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

BE COMPLETE efficacy

Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.

Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).

In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.

BE OPTIMAL efficacy

In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.

This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).

In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
 

Safety

More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.

The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.

Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
 

Clues to efficacy

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”

Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”

The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.

The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.

As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

BE COMPLETE efficacy

Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.

Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).

In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.

BE OPTIMAL efficacy

In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.

This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).

In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
 

Safety

More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.

The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.

Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
 

Clues to efficacy

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”

Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”

The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.

The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Neil Osterweil/Medscape

“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.

As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
 

BE COMPLETE efficacy

Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.

Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).

In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.

BE OPTIMAL efficacy

In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.

This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).

In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
 

Safety

More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.

The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.

Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
 

Clues to efficacy

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”

Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”

The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following a diet rich in healthy plant-based products may lower one’s risk of breast cancer, but not if that diet happens to be high in unhealthy foods, researchers have found.

The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.

“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”

Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.

Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.

Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.

Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.

Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.

“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”

Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.