The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Radioactive iodine treatment of children and young adults with differentiated thyroid cancer appears to heighten the future risk of leukemia and a range of solid tumors, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.

The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).

“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.

Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.

“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.

Radioactive iodine treatment of children and young adults with differentiated thyroid cancer appears to heighten the future risk of leukemia and a range of solid tumors, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.

The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).

“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.

Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.

“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.

Radioactive iodine treatment of children and young adults with differentiated thyroid cancer appears to heighten the future risk of leukemia and a range of solid tumors, including breast cancer, according to a new analysis of the United States SEER cancer registries.

The study included data from 36,311 patients between 1975 and 2017. Among 5-year differentiated thyroid cancer survivors, over a median follow-up of 15.6 years, radioactive iodine treatment was linked to a 23% increased risk of solid tumors. Among 20-year survivors, there was a 47% increased risk in solid tumors and a 46% increased risk of breast cancer. Two-year survivors had a 51% increased risk of hematologic malignancies, including a 92% increased risk of leukemia. The researchers estimate that 6% of all solid tumors, 5% of breast tumors, and 14% of hematologic malignancies among differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have survived at least 1 year are attributable to radioactive iodine (RAI).

“Our study is not the first to show an increased risk of leukemia or solid cancer after RAI therapy, although some may be surprised about the increased risk of breast cancer, which was not observed in some earlier studies on this topic. The large size of our study, our focus on younger patients (who are more susceptible to the late effects of radiation therapy than older patients), and more than 40 years of follow-up, enabled us to provide more precise estimates of these risks. Our findings were not surprising given current understanding of the long-term, carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure,” said lead author Cari Kitahara, PhD, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at National Cancer Institute. The risk estimates also are similar to previous studies of exposure to medial and nonmedical radiation sources, she added.

Although radioactive iodine has seen an increase in use for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer, there is little evidence that it improves outcomes in localized differentiated thyroid cancer, and the American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend against radioactive iodine therapy for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers smaller than 1 cm, and lower radiation levels for larger tumors. The pediatric guideline suggests a similar approach, except that it doesn’t discourage use of RAI in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers.

“Physicians should discuss the overall balance of risks and benefits of RAI therapy with their patients. Although RAI has been used in the management of thyroid cancer for many decades, clinical practice guidelines have changed over time and now encourage avoidance of unnecessary or excessive use of RAI therapy for low-risk tumors. Our results suggest that even greater caution and more consideration of the late effects of RAI therapy are needed for younger patients, who are more vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure and are more likely to experience these long-term effects than older adults,” Dr. Kitahara said.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Kitahara has no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.

The findings confirm that nedaplatin-based chemoradiotherapy could be considered as an alternative to cisplatin for stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m² of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.

The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.

In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m²)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m²)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.

In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.

The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.

The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.

The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.

Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.

The findings confirm that nedaplatin-based chemoradiotherapy could be considered as an alternative to cisplatin for stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m² of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.

The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.

In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m²)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m²)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.

In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.

The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.

The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.

The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.

Patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy, achieved 5-year survival rates comparable to those of patients treated with cisplatin chemoradiotherapy, but with fewer toxic effects, shows a study in JAMA Network Open.

The findings confirm that nedaplatin-based chemoradiotherapy could be considered as an alternative to cisplatin for stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, wrote authors who were led by Lin-Quan Tang, MD, PhD, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.

While the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends radiotherapy administered concurrently with 100 mg/m² of cisplatin every 3 weeks for patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases the frequency of treatment-related toxic effects. They include severe gastrointestinal responses, hearing deficits, renal toxic effects, and neurotoxic effects, decreasing treatment adherence and patient quality of life. An antitumor drug with similar therapeutic efficacy to cisplatin but with reduced adverse effects is needed urgently, authors wrote.

The cisplatin analogue nedaplatin, designed to decrease the nephrotoxic and gastrointestinal toxic effects seen with cisplatin, has antitumor mechanisms and efficacy similar to cisplatin. It has demonstrated effectiveness and tolerability in various malignant tumors, and has, in vitro, shown potential as a radiosensitizing agent with nasopharyngeal carcinoma and cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.

In the initial 2-year results of the phase 3 randomized trial in this population of patients with stage II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy was noninferior to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy with differences of 1.9% and 1.0% (P = .005 and P = .002), in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of progression-free survival, respectively. Patients (n = 402) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nedaplatin (100 mg/m²)– or cisplatin (100 mg/m²)–based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for three cycles concurrently with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Information on long-term follow-up and late toxic effects was limited.

In the current analysis of 402 patients (about 25% female, median age 44.5 years), the intention-to-treat 5-year progression-free survival rate was 81.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-86.9%) for the cisplatin group and 79.8% (95% CI, 74.1%-85.5%) for the nedaplatin group, with a difference of 1.6% (95% CI, −6.3% to 9.5%; P = .002 for noninferiority). No significant survival differences were observed between the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups for 5-year overall survival (89.4% vs. 88.8%; P = .63), distant metastasis–free survival (85.9% vs. 90.4%, P = .17), and locoregional relapse–free survival (92.6% vs. 89.6%; P = .17) rates.

The incidence of grade 3 and 4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group than in the nedaplatin group (35 [17.7%] vs. 21 [10.5%], P = .04). Also, the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 auditory toxic effects was higher in the cisplatin group versus patients in the nedaplatin group (19.9% vs. 12.0%; P = .42). The odds ratio, in a post hoc regression analysis, for auditory toxic effects was 0.51 (0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93; P = .03) for patients in the nedaplatin group.

The findings, the authors concluded, confirm that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could be an alternative to cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy as doublet therapy for II to IVB nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The potential of nedaplatin in combination drug chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the induction or adjuvant phase needs to be explored in further investigations, the authors added.

The study was funded by multiple grants; the study investigator reported no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

While the representation of women in radiation oncology and medical oncology academic faculties has increased over time, racial and ethnic minorities are still vastly underrepresented in these fields, according to a cross-sectional study of data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“Creating and maintaining a diverse health care workforce is a priority to help combat societal inequities and health disparities, particularly in light of the evolving demographic characteristics of the general U.S. population,” wrote authors who were led by Sophia C. Kamran, MD, a radiation oncologist with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study, which was published Dec. 9 in JAMA Oncology, surveyed full-time U.S.-based faculty in radiation and medical oncology departments from 1970 through 2019.

Improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and outcomes have been documented when a health care workforce better reflects the demographic traits of those whom it serves, Dr. Kamran and associates wrote.

They point to recent increases in the number and urgency of calls for improved diversity in the health care workforce, citing also higher incidence and mortality of new cancer cases among Black, indigenous, and Hispanic populations, compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Prior calls for health care work force diversity have led to some creation of opportunities and pathways for increased representation of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in medicine, and the overall diversity of medical school faculty has been increasing by race and ethnicity and sex.

The change, however, is of lesser magnitude than what has been seen among medical school applicants, students, and graduates, and the gains in medical school faculty diversity have not kept pace with increasing diversity of the U.S. population. It has remained unclear whether corresponding progress has occurred in the composition of radiation oncology and medical oncology departments during the last 5 decades.
 

Despite lack of diversity, total faculty numbers have increased

Dr. Kamran and associates’ analysis revealed that total faculty numbers increased over time in both radiation oncology and medical oncology, with faculty representation of underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) women proportionally increased by 0.1% per decade in both radiation oncology (95% confidence interval, 0.005%-0.110%; P < . 001 for trend) and medical oncology (95% CI, −0.03% to 0.16%; P = .06 for trend), compared with non–URM women faculty, which increased by 0.4% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.80%) per decade in radiation oncology and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.47%-0.87%) per decade in medical oncology (P < .001 for trend for both). Faculty representation of URM men did not significantly change for radiation oncology (0.03% per decade [95% CI, −0.008% to 0.065%]; P = .09 for trend) or for medical oncology (0.003% per decade [95% CI, −0.13% to 0.14%]; P = .94 for trend).

In both 2009 and 2019, representation of both women and URM individuals for both specialties was less than their representation in the U.S. population. Radiation oncology faculty had the lowest URM representation in 2019 at 5.1%. The number of total URM faculty represented among both medical oncology and radiation oncology remained low for every rank in 2019 (Medical oncology: instructor, 2 of 44 [5%]; assistant professor, 18 of 274 [7%]; associate professor, 13 of 177 [7%]; full professor, 13 of 276 [5%]. Radiation oncology: instructor, 9 of 147 [6%]; assistant professor, 57 of 927 [6%]; associate professor, 20 of 510 [4%]; full professor, 18 of 452 [4%]).

“Our results highlight significant diversity differences along the career ladder in both specialties, with women having lower academic rank than men throughout the study period, and underrepresented [racial and ethnic groups] at every rank,” the authors wrote.

And, although Black, Hispanic, and indigenous people make up about 31% of the U.S. population, their inclusion in the health care workforce trails at all stages in the pipeline, the investigators found.

Diversity among radiation and medical oncologists lags behind that of medical school diversity in general, which has grown through efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Despite some improvements, the authors suggest the need for more initiatives to retain racial and ethnic minorities in an effort to reflect the diversity of the U.S. cancer population.

“This is a multifactorial issue, with focus not only on increasing diversity of the upstream pipeline but maintaining diversity throughout the entire pipeline, requiring difficult but necessary conversations about racial and ethnic systemic bias, lack of exposure and opportunities, and financial toxicities and pressures, to name a few. Until these factors are further delineated and better addressed, focused and targeted mentorship is key,” the authors wrote.
 

Small steps can have a collective impact

In a commentary published with the study, Frederick Lansigan, MD, and Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD, both of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., called for a systemic change in hiring practices.

“Any small steps of change that contribute to supporting the issues highlighted by the Kamran et al. study can have a collective positive impact. A holistic evaluation of [underrepresented] applicants at all stages of education and training is paramount, and joining selection committees is necessary to ensure fair processes. Mentoring programs, leadership courses, and addressing microaggressions and mistreatment may improve retention of [underrepresented] medical school matriculants and trainees in oncology. Cancer centers can build and lead visible and tangible diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging efforts as we are doing at our institution,” the physicians wrote.

But above all, Dr. Lansigan and Dr. Thomas said that the oncology community needs to agree that intentionally increasing the number of underrepresented physicians in the U.S. workforce is necessary to better address health care inequities.

“We need all hands on deck to reduce structural barriers in early education. We need STEM programs that start in elementary school and offer support through college. Oncologists can mentor these early learners to highlight the positive aspects of a career in oncology, the importance of [underrepresented] physicians in oncology, and the resilience required in caring for those with serious illness, many of whom will come from underserved populations. “Physicians and public health experts themselves who are interested in tackling the discrepancy between [underrepresented] and [non-underrepresented] medical school [students] and oncology trainees need to seek and be elected into positions that can start to balance this equation. If more are willing to acknowledge the structural inequities that exist in the oncology workforce pipeline, we can start to solve the complex equation of structural inequities.”

Dr Lansigan reported being the Interim Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Geisel School of Medicine and the Principal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the department of medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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

In a first of its kind study, researchers found women who received two mRNA COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy were 61% less likely to have a baby hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of life.

In addition, two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine later in a pregnancy were linked to an even higher level of protection, 80%, compared with 32% when given before 20 weeks’ gestation.

This finding suggests a greater transfer of maternal antibodies closer to birth, but more research is needed, cautioned senior study author Manish Patel, MD, during a Tuesday media telebriefing held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unanswered questions include how the babies got infected or if there is any protection afforded to babies for women vaccinated before pregnancy.

“We cannot be sure about the source of the infection,” said Dr. Patel, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team.

Dana Meaney-Delman, MD, MPH, agreed, but added that “perinatal transmission of the virus is very rare” with SARS-CoV-2. She is a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist and chief of the CDC Infant Outcomes Monitoring Research and Prevention Branch.

The study numbers were too small to show if a booster shot during pregnancy or breastfeeding could provide even greater protection for babies, Dr. Patel said.

The early release study was published online Feb. 15 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

Many previous studies looking at COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy focused on maternal health and “have clearly shown that receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy reduces the risk for severe illness,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.
 

Some dual protection suggested

Now there is evidence for a potential benefit to babies as well when a pregnant woman gets vaccinated. The study “provides real-world evidence that getting COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy might help protect infants less than 6 months [of age],” Dr. Meaney-Delman said.

“These findings continue to emphasize the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy to protect people who are pregnant and also to protect their babies,” she said.

Dr. Patel and colleagues studied 379 infants younger than 6 months hospitalized between July 1, 2021 and Jan. 17 of this year. Delta and then the Omicron variant predominated during this time.

The infants were admitted to one of 20 children’s hospitals in 17 states. The researchers compared 176 infants admitted with a positive COVID-19 PCR test to another 203 infants with a negative PCR test who served as controls. 

Half as many mothers of infants admitted with COVID-19 were vaccinated during pregnancy, 16%, versus 32% of mothers of the control infants.

Vaccination with two doses of mRNA vaccine during pregnancy was 61% effective (95% confidence interval, 31%-78%) at preventing hospitalization among these infants. Because the study was epidemiological, the lower risk was an association, not a cause-and-effect finding, Dr. Patel said.

Babies admitted to the hospital positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, 18%, versus 9% of control group babies; and more likely to be Hispanic, 34% versus 28%, respectively.

A total 24% of infants with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU, including the baby of an unvaccinated mother who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Another baby of an unvaccinated mother was the only infant death during the study.
 

Maternal vaccination trends

A reporter pointed out that COVID-19 vaccination rates tend to be low among pregnant women. “So there is some exciting news,” Dr. Meaney-Delman said, referring to a steady increase in the percentages of pregnant women in the U.S. choosing to get vaccinated, according to the CDC Data Tracker website.

“The numbers are encouraging, [but] they’re not quite where we need them to be, and they do differ by race and ethnicity,” she added.

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