Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

Women with physical, intellectual, and sensory disabilities had higher risk for almost all pregnancy complications, obstetric interventions, and adverse outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and mortality compared to women without disabilities, according to an analysis of a large, retrospective cohort.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open (2021;4[12]:e2138414 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38414), “may be a direct reflection of the challenges women with all types of disabilities face when accessing and receiving care, which is likely compounded by poorer preconception health,” suggested lead author Jessica L. Gleason, PhD, MPH, and co-authors, all from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

“Women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice,” added Hilary K. Brown, PhD, from the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial. “Inclusion of disability indicators needs to be the norm – not the exception – in health administrative data so that these disparities can be regularly tracked and addressed.”

The investigators used data from the Consortium on Safe Labor (CSL), a retrospective cohort of deliveries from 12 U.S. clinical centers between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2008, to analyze obstetric interventions and adverse maternal outcomes in women with and without disabilities.

The analysis included a total of 223,385 women, mean age 27.6 years, of whom 2,074 (0.9%) had a disability, and 221,311 did not. Among those with disabilities, 1,733 (83.5%) were physical, 91 (4.4%) were intellectual, and 250 (12.1%) were sensory. While almost half (49.4%) of the women were White, 22.5% were Black, 17.5% were Hispanic, and 4.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander.

Outcomes were analyzed with three composite measures:

• Pregnancy-related complications (pregnancy-related hypertensive diseases, gestational diabetes, placental abruption, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes, preterm PROM);
• All labor, delivery, and postpartum complications (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, blood transfusion, thromboembolism, postpartum fever, infection, cardiovascular events, cardiomyopathy, and maternal death);
• SMM only, including severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, fever, infection, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular events during labor and delivery.

After adjustment for covariates, women with disabilities had higher risk of pregnancy-related complications. This included a 48% higher risk of mild pre-eclampsia and double the risk of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. The composite risk of any pregnancy complication was 27% higher for women with physical disabilities, 49% higher for women with intellectual disabilities, and 53% higher for women with sensory disabilities.

The findings were similar for labor, delivery, and postpartum complications, showing women with disabilities had higher risk for a range of obstetrical interventions, including cesarean delivery – both planned and intrapartum (aRR, 1.34). Additionally, women with disabilities were less likely to have a cesarean delivery that was “solely clinically indicated” (aRR, 0.79), and more likely to have a cesarean delivery for “softer” mixed indication (aRR, 1.16), “supporting a possible overuse of cesarean delivery among women with disability,” they suggested.

Women with disabilities also had a higher risk of postpartum hemorrhage (aRR, 1.27), blood transfusion (aRR, 1.64), and maternal mortality (aRR, 11.19), as well as individual markers of severe maternal morbidity, such as cardiovascular events (aRR, 4.02), infection (aRR, 2.69), and venous thromboembolism (aRR, 6.08).

The authors speculate that the increased risks for women with disabilities “may be the result of a combination of independent risk factors, including the higher rate of obstetric intervention via cesarean delivery, under-recognition of women with disabilities as a population with higher-risk pregnancies, and lack of health care practitioner knowledge or comfort in managing pregnancies among women with disabilities.”

Dr. Brown noted in her commentary that there is a need for better education of health care professionals in this area. “Given that 12% of reproductive-aged women have a disability, that pregnancy rates are similar among women with and without disabilities, and that women with disabilities are at elevated risk of a range of adverse maternal outcomes, including severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality, disability modules should be a mandatory component of education for obstetricians and midwives as well as other obstetrical health care professionals.”

Calling the study “a serious wake-up call,” Monika Mitra, PhD, told this publication that the findings highlight the need for “urgent attention” on improving obstetric care for people with disabilities “with a focus on accessibility and inclusion, changing clinical practice to better serve disabled people, integrating disability-related training for health care practitioners, and developing evidence-based interventions to support people with disabilities during this time.” The associate professor and director of the Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, in Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. said the risk factors for poor outcomes are present early in pregnancy or even preconception. “We know that disabled women report barriers in accessing health care and receive lower-quality care compared to nondisabled women and are more likely to experience poverty, housing and food insecurity, educational and employment barriers, abuse, chronic health conditions, and mental illness than women without disabilities.”

She noted that the study’s sample of people with disabilities was small, and the measure of disability used was based on ICD-9 codes, which captures only severe disabilities. “As noted in the commentary by [Dr.] Brown, our standard sources of health administrative data do not give us the full picture on disability, and we need other, more equitable ways of identifying disability based, for example, on self-reports of activity or participation limitations if we are to be able to understand the effects on obstetric outcomes of health and health care disparities and of social determinants of health. Moreover, researchers have generally not yet begun to incorporate knowledge of the experiences of transgender people during pregnancy, which will impact our measures and study of obstetric outcomes among people with disabilities as well as the language we use.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study authors and Dr. Brown reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mitra receives funding from the NICHD and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living for research on pregnancy outcomes among people with disabilities.

[email protected]

The advisory on youth mental health from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, casts a necessary spotlight on the crisis, clinical psychiatrists say. But some think it could have produced more specifics about funding and payment parity for reimbursement.

The 53-page advisory says that about one in five U.S. children and adolescents aged 3-17 suffer from a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. In the decade before COVID, feelings of sadness and hopelessness, as well as suicidal behaviors, were on the rise. The pandemic has exacerbated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues in young people. Compared with 2019, ED visits in early 2021 for suspected suicide attempts rose 51% in adolescent girls and 4% in boys. “Depressive and anxiety symptoms doubled during the pandemic,” the advisory said.
 

Scope of the advisory

The advisory, released Dec. 7, covers all sectors and considers all social and policy factors that might be contributing to this crisis, said Jessica (Jessi) Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University, St. Louis.

“It is always possible to reimagine health care to be more patient centered and mental health forward.” But changes of this magnitude take time, Dr. Gold, also director of wellness, engagement, and outreach at the university, said in an interview.

She has seen the impact of the pandemic firsthand in her clinic among students and frontline health care workers aged 18-30. People in that age group “feel everything deeply,” Dr. Gold said. Emotions tied to COVID-19 are just a part of it. Confounding factors, such as climate change, racism, and school shootings all contribute to their overall mental health.

Some children and adolescents with social anxiety have fared better during the pandemic, but those who are part of demographic groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ individuals, low-income youth, and those involved in juvenile justice or welfare systems face a higher risk of mental health challenges, the pandemic notwithstanding.

In her work with schools, Denese Shervington, MD, MPH, has witnessed more mental health challenges related to isolation and separation. “There’s an overall worry about the loss of what used to be, the seeming predictability and certainty of prepandemic life,” said Dr. Shervington, clinical professor of psychiatry at Tulane University, and president and CEO of the Institute for Women and Ethnic Studies, both in New Orleans.
 

A systems of care plan

The advisory lists actionable items for health care and 10 other industry sectors to improve mental health of children and young adults.

Health care organizations and professionals were advised to take the following six steps:

• Implement trauma-informed care principles and other prevention strategies. This may involve referring patients to resources such as economic and legal supports, school enrichment programs, and educating families on healthy child development in the clinic.
• Routinely screen children for mental health challenges and risk factors such as adverse childhood experiences during primary care well-visits or annual physicals, or at schools or EDs. Primary care physicians should use principles of trauma-informed care to conduct these screenings.
• Screen parents, caregivers, and other family members for depression, intimate partner violence, substance use, and other challenges. These can be done in tandem with broader assessments of social determinants of health such as food or housing insecurity.
• Combine efforts of clinical staff with trusted community partners and child welfare and juvenile justice. Hospital-based violence intervention programs, for example, identify patients at risk of repeat violent injury and refer them to hospital- and community-based resources.
• Build multidisciplinary teams, enlisting children and families to develop services that are tailored to their needs for screening and treatment. Such services should reflect cultural diversity and offered in multiple languages.
• Support the well-being of mental health workers and community leaders to foster their ability to help youth and their families.

Dr. Murthy is talking about a “systems of care” approach, in which all sectors that touch children and youth – not just health care – must work together and do their jobs effectively but collaboratively to address this public health crisis, said Aradhana (Bela) Sood MD, MSHA, FAACAP, senior professor of child mental health policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “An investment in infrastructure support of positive mental health in early childhood, be it in schools, communities, or family well-being will lead to a future where illness is not the result of major preventable societal factors, such as a lack of social supports and trauma.”
 

Changes will ‘take a lot of buy-in’

The recommendations are actionable in the real world – but there are a lot of them, said Dr. Gold. Dr. Murthy doesn’t specify what the plan is to accomplish these metrics or fund them, she added. He “has money and funders like foundations as steps, but foundations have also suffered in the pandemic, so it is not that simple.” Many of these changes are wide in scope and will take a lot of buy-in.

Dr. Shervington would like to have seen more of a focus on educator well-being, given that young people spend a lot of time in educational settings.

“My organization just completed a study in New Orleans that showed teachers having elevated levels of trauma-based conditions since the pandemic,” she said. Schools are indeed a key place to support holistic mental health by focusing on school climate, Dr. Sood added. “If school administrators became uniformly consistent with recognizing the importance of psychological wellness as a prerequisite of good learning, they will create environments where teachers are keenly aware of a child’s mental wellness and make reduction of bullying, wellness check-ins, [and] school-based mental health clinics a priority.

“These are ways nonmedical, community-based supports can enhance student well-being, and reduce depression and other mental health conditions,” Dr. Sood added.
 

Child psychiatrists stretched ‘even thinner’

Despite mental health parity rules, health plans have not been held accountable. That failure, combined with excessive demands for prior authorization for mental health treatments “have led to dangerous shortages of psychiatrists able to accept insurance,” said Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This is particularly true for child psychiatrists, who are stretched even thinner than those of us in general practice,” Dr. Nestadt said.

While he doesn’t address it head on, Dr. Murthy uses classic parity language when he states that “mental health is no less important than physical health,” said Dr. Nestadt, who consulted with the surgeon general on developing this advisory. “While many of us would have liked to see parity highlighted more directly, this advisory was designed to be an overview.”
 

Highlighting social media, gun violence

Dr. Nestadt said he was pleased that the advisory emphasized the importance of restricting access to lethal means in preventing youth suicide.

“With youth suicide rates rising faster than in other age groups, and suicide mortality tied so closely to method availability, the surgeon general made the right choice in highlighting the role of guns in suicide,” he said.

The advisory also discussed the role of media and social media companies in addressing the crisis, which is important, said Dr. Gold.

“I believe very strongly that the way we talk about and portray mental health in the media matters,” she said. “I have seen it matter in the clinic with patients. They’ll wonder if someone will think they are now violent if they are diagnosed with a mental illness. Stories change the narrative.”

While the advisory isn’t perfect, the state of youth mental health “will only get worse if we don’t do something,” noted Dr. Gold. “It is critical that this is validated and discussed at the highest level and messages like Dr. Murthy’s get heard.”

Dr. Gold, Dr. Shervington, and Dr. Sood had no disclosures. Dr. Nestadt disclosed serving as a consultant to the surgeon general advisory.

The advisory on youth mental health from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, casts a necessary spotlight on the crisis, clinical psychiatrists say. But some think it could have produced more specifics about funding and payment parity for reimbursement.

The 53-page advisory says that about one in five U.S. children and adolescents aged 3-17 suffer from a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. In the decade before COVID, feelings of sadness and hopelessness, as well as suicidal behaviors, were on the rise. The pandemic has exacerbated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues in young people. Compared with 2019, ED visits in early 2021 for suspected suicide attempts rose 51% in adolescent girls and 4% in boys. “Depressive and anxiety symptoms doubled during the pandemic,” the advisory said.
 

Scope of the advisory

The advisory, released Dec. 7, covers all sectors and considers all social and policy factors that might be contributing to this crisis, said Jessica (Jessi) Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University, St. Louis.

“It is always possible to reimagine health care to be more patient centered and mental health forward.” But changes of this magnitude take time, Dr. Gold, also director of wellness, engagement, and outreach at the university, said in an interview.

She has seen the impact of the pandemic firsthand in her clinic among students and frontline health care workers aged 18-30. People in that age group “feel everything deeply,” Dr. Gold said. Emotions tied to COVID-19 are just a part of it. Confounding factors, such as climate change, racism, and school shootings all contribute to their overall mental health.

Some children and adolescents with social anxiety have fared better during the pandemic, but those who are part of demographic groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ individuals, low-income youth, and those involved in juvenile justice or welfare systems face a higher risk of mental health challenges, the pandemic notwithstanding.

In her work with schools, Denese Shervington, MD, MPH, has witnessed more mental health challenges related to isolation and separation. “There’s an overall worry about the loss of what used to be, the seeming predictability and certainty of prepandemic life,” said Dr. Shervington, clinical professor of psychiatry at Tulane University, and president and CEO of the Institute for Women and Ethnic Studies, both in New Orleans.
 

A systems of care plan

The advisory lists actionable items for health care and 10 other industry sectors to improve mental health of children and young adults.

Health care organizations and professionals were advised to take the following six steps:

• Implement trauma-informed care principles and other prevention strategies. This may involve referring patients to resources such as economic and legal supports, school enrichment programs, and educating families on healthy child development in the clinic.
• Routinely screen children for mental health challenges and risk factors such as adverse childhood experiences during primary care well-visits or annual physicals, or at schools or EDs. Primary care physicians should use principles of trauma-informed care to conduct these screenings.
• Screen parents, caregivers, and other family members for depression, intimate partner violence, substance use, and other challenges. These can be done in tandem with broader assessments of social determinants of health such as food or housing insecurity.
• Combine efforts of clinical staff with trusted community partners and child welfare and juvenile justice. Hospital-based violence intervention programs, for example, identify patients at risk of repeat violent injury and refer them to hospital- and community-based resources.
• Build multidisciplinary teams, enlisting children and families to develop services that are tailored to their needs for screening and treatment. Such services should reflect cultural diversity and offered in multiple languages.
• Support the well-being of mental health workers and community leaders to foster their ability to help youth and their families.

Dr. Murthy is talking about a “systems of care” approach, in which all sectors that touch children and youth – not just health care – must work together and do their jobs effectively but collaboratively to address this public health crisis, said Aradhana (Bela) Sood MD, MSHA, FAACAP, senior professor of child mental health policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “An investment in infrastructure support of positive mental health in early childhood, be it in schools, communities, or family well-being will lead to a future where illness is not the result of major preventable societal factors, such as a lack of social supports and trauma.”
 

Changes will ‘take a lot of buy-in’

The recommendations are actionable in the real world – but there are a lot of them, said Dr. Gold. Dr. Murthy doesn’t specify what the plan is to accomplish these metrics or fund them, she added. He “has money and funders like foundations as steps, but foundations have also suffered in the pandemic, so it is not that simple.” Many of these changes are wide in scope and will take a lot of buy-in.

Dr. Shervington would like to have seen more of a focus on educator well-being, given that young people spend a lot of time in educational settings.

“My organization just completed a study in New Orleans that showed teachers having elevated levels of trauma-based conditions since the pandemic,” she said. Schools are indeed a key place to support holistic mental health by focusing on school climate, Dr. Sood added. “If school administrators became uniformly consistent with recognizing the importance of psychological wellness as a prerequisite of good learning, they will create environments where teachers are keenly aware of a child’s mental wellness and make reduction of bullying, wellness check-ins, [and] school-based mental health clinics a priority.

“These are ways nonmedical, community-based supports can enhance student well-being, and reduce depression and other mental health conditions,” Dr. Sood added.
 

Child psychiatrists stretched ‘even thinner’

Despite mental health parity rules, health plans have not been held accountable. That failure, combined with excessive demands for prior authorization for mental health treatments “have led to dangerous shortages of psychiatrists able to accept insurance,” said Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This is particularly true for child psychiatrists, who are stretched even thinner than those of us in general practice,” Dr. Nestadt said.

While he doesn’t address it head on, Dr. Murthy uses classic parity language when he states that “mental health is no less important than physical health,” said Dr. Nestadt, who consulted with the surgeon general on developing this advisory. “While many of us would have liked to see parity highlighted more directly, this advisory was designed to be an overview.”
 

Highlighting social media, gun violence

Dr. Nestadt said he was pleased that the advisory emphasized the importance of restricting access to lethal means in preventing youth suicide.

“With youth suicide rates rising faster than in other age groups, and suicide mortality tied so closely to method availability, the surgeon general made the right choice in highlighting the role of guns in suicide,” he said.

The advisory also discussed the role of media and social media companies in addressing the crisis, which is important, said Dr. Gold.

“I believe very strongly that the way we talk about and portray mental health in the media matters,” she said. “I have seen it matter in the clinic with patients. They’ll wonder if someone will think they are now violent if they are diagnosed with a mental illness. Stories change the narrative.”

While the advisory isn’t perfect, the state of youth mental health “will only get worse if we don’t do something,” noted Dr. Gold. “It is critical that this is validated and discussed at the highest level and messages like Dr. Murthy’s get heard.”

Dr. Gold, Dr. Shervington, and Dr. Sood had no disclosures. Dr. Nestadt disclosed serving as a consultant to the surgeon general advisory.

The advisory on youth mental health from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, casts a necessary spotlight on the crisis, clinical psychiatrists say. But some think it could have produced more specifics about funding and payment parity for reimbursement.

The 53-page advisory says that about one in five U.S. children and adolescents aged 3-17 suffer from a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. In the decade before COVID, feelings of sadness and hopelessness, as well as suicidal behaviors, were on the rise. The pandemic has exacerbated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues in young people. Compared with 2019, ED visits in early 2021 for suspected suicide attempts rose 51% in adolescent girls and 4% in boys. “Depressive and anxiety symptoms doubled during the pandemic,” the advisory said.
 

Scope of the advisory

The advisory, released Dec. 7, covers all sectors and considers all social and policy factors that might be contributing to this crisis, said Jessica (Jessi) Gold, MD, MS, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University, St. Louis.

“It is always possible to reimagine health care to be more patient centered and mental health forward.” But changes of this magnitude take time, Dr. Gold, also director of wellness, engagement, and outreach at the university, said in an interview.

She has seen the impact of the pandemic firsthand in her clinic among students and frontline health care workers aged 18-30. People in that age group “feel everything deeply,” Dr. Gold said. Emotions tied to COVID-19 are just a part of it. Confounding factors, such as climate change, racism, and school shootings all contribute to their overall mental health.

Some children and adolescents with social anxiety have fared better during the pandemic, but those who are part of demographic groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ individuals, low-income youth, and those involved in juvenile justice or welfare systems face a higher risk of mental health challenges, the pandemic notwithstanding.

In her work with schools, Denese Shervington, MD, MPH, has witnessed more mental health challenges related to isolation and separation. “There’s an overall worry about the loss of what used to be, the seeming predictability and certainty of prepandemic life,” said Dr. Shervington, clinical professor of psychiatry at Tulane University, and president and CEO of the Institute for Women and Ethnic Studies, both in New Orleans.
 

A systems of care plan

The advisory lists actionable items for health care and 10 other industry sectors to improve mental health of children and young adults.

Health care organizations and professionals were advised to take the following six steps:

• Implement trauma-informed care principles and other prevention strategies. This may involve referring patients to resources such as economic and legal supports, school enrichment programs, and educating families on healthy child development in the clinic.
• Routinely screen children for mental health challenges and risk factors such as adverse childhood experiences during primary care well-visits or annual physicals, or at schools or EDs. Primary care physicians should use principles of trauma-informed care to conduct these screenings.
• Screen parents, caregivers, and other family members for depression, intimate partner violence, substance use, and other challenges. These can be done in tandem with broader assessments of social determinants of health such as food or housing insecurity.
• Combine efforts of clinical staff with trusted community partners and child welfare and juvenile justice. Hospital-based violence intervention programs, for example, identify patients at risk of repeat violent injury and refer them to hospital- and community-based resources.
• Build multidisciplinary teams, enlisting children and families to develop services that are tailored to their needs for screening and treatment. Such services should reflect cultural diversity and offered in multiple languages.
• Support the well-being of mental health workers and community leaders to foster their ability to help youth and their families.

Dr. Murthy is talking about a “systems of care” approach, in which all sectors that touch children and youth – not just health care – must work together and do their jobs effectively but collaboratively to address this public health crisis, said Aradhana (Bela) Sood MD, MSHA, FAACAP, senior professor of child mental health policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “An investment in infrastructure support of positive mental health in early childhood, be it in schools, communities, or family well-being will lead to a future where illness is not the result of major preventable societal factors, such as a lack of social supports and trauma.”
 

Changes will ‘take a lot of buy-in’

The recommendations are actionable in the real world – but there are a lot of them, said Dr. Gold. Dr. Murthy doesn’t specify what the plan is to accomplish these metrics or fund them, she added. He “has money and funders like foundations as steps, but foundations have also suffered in the pandemic, so it is not that simple.” Many of these changes are wide in scope and will take a lot of buy-in.

Dr. Shervington would like to have seen more of a focus on educator well-being, given that young people spend a lot of time in educational settings.

“My organization just completed a study in New Orleans that showed teachers having elevated levels of trauma-based conditions since the pandemic,” she said. Schools are indeed a key place to support holistic mental health by focusing on school climate, Dr. Sood added. “If school administrators became uniformly consistent with recognizing the importance of psychological wellness as a prerequisite of good learning, they will create environments where teachers are keenly aware of a child’s mental wellness and make reduction of bullying, wellness check-ins, [and] school-based mental health clinics a priority.

“These are ways nonmedical, community-based supports can enhance student well-being, and reduce depression and other mental health conditions,” Dr. Sood added.
 

Child psychiatrists stretched ‘even thinner’

Despite mental health parity rules, health plans have not been held accountable. That failure, combined with excessive demands for prior authorization for mental health treatments “have led to dangerous shortages of psychiatrists able to accept insurance,” said Paul S. Nestadt, MD, an assistant professor and public mental health researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This is particularly true for child psychiatrists, who are stretched even thinner than those of us in general practice,” Dr. Nestadt said.

While he doesn’t address it head on, Dr. Murthy uses classic parity language when he states that “mental health is no less important than physical health,” said Dr. Nestadt, who consulted with the surgeon general on developing this advisory. “While many of us would have liked to see parity highlighted more directly, this advisory was designed to be an overview.”
 

Highlighting social media, gun violence

Dr. Nestadt said he was pleased that the advisory emphasized the importance of restricting access to lethal means in preventing youth suicide.

“With youth suicide rates rising faster than in other age groups, and suicide mortality tied so closely to method availability, the surgeon general made the right choice in highlighting the role of guns in suicide,” he said.

The advisory also discussed the role of media and social media companies in addressing the crisis, which is important, said Dr. Gold.

“I believe very strongly that the way we talk about and portray mental health in the media matters,” she said. “I have seen it matter in the clinic with patients. They’ll wonder if someone will think they are now violent if they are diagnosed with a mental illness. Stories change the narrative.”

While the advisory isn’t perfect, the state of youth mental health “will only get worse if we don’t do something,” noted Dr. Gold. “It is critical that this is validated and discussed at the highest level and messages like Dr. Murthy’s get heard.”

Dr. Gold, Dr. Shervington, and Dr. Sood had no disclosures. Dr. Nestadt disclosed serving as a consultant to the surgeon general advisory.

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

ATLANTA – Virtual clinic visits have enabled sickle cell disease patients to stay alive and healthier during the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns remain for those who lack access to specialized care centers, according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.

ASH

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to be a global pandemic. Shortly after, federal regulators temporarily relaxed restrictions, raised Medicare payment for telemedicine visits to the same level as in-person visits, and waived or reduced cost sharing for patients. As pandemic-related regulations expire, policymakers are debating the need to address insurance coverage of telemedicine services going forward. Congress should consider the lessons learned over the past 20 months to ensure that health care providers have the flexibility to meet the needs of patients.

One of my early telehealth visits was with a patient in his 80s who spent nearly a month in the hospital after complex abdominal surgery. While at home with his daughter, it was the first visit to assess his progress after discharge from the hospital. We were able to address his concerns, assess his wounds using the video on his computer, and formulate a plan so he could continue to improve. At the end of the call, his daughter mentioned in passing, “Thank God we did not have to go to the office ... that would have been a nightmare.”

The nightmare would have consisted of driving her frail father 45 minutes to our office, spending 15 minutes to park, waiting for 30 minutes to be seen, and finally speaking with the physician for 30 minutes face-to-face. Following the appointment, my patient and his daughter would spend another 10 minutes checking out before the 45-minute drive home. Instead, they spent a few minutes logging on through a computer prior to the 30-minute visit from the comfort of their couch.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic loss, as well as changed the norms of social interaction. One of the many ways it impacted our health care system is through the exponential growth of telehealth – the use of telecommunication modalities, such as telephone and real-time video – to connect patients with clinicians for the purpose of providing health care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth was limited to populations with limited access to health care. Our practice had never performed telehealth, yet converted nearly exclusively to telehealth at the height of the pandemic. My colleagues and I were concerned about how patients and physicians would respond to the sudden disruption of norms of patient engagement.

To measure the response, we conducted an online survey of over 500 gastroenterologists and nearly 1,500 patients from March to May 2020 to assess their satisfaction with telehealth. Our published results demonstrated that more than 80% of patients and 90% of physicians surveyed were either satisfied or highly satisfied with telehealth. Surprisingly, these trends were true irrespective of age or the reason for a visit. Greater than 80% of patients also indicated that the provider addressed their concerns and that they were willing to participate in telehealth visits in the future.

In a subsequent survey of nearly 3,000 patients who had experience with telehealth and in-person visits, 73% of respondents indicated that they received a similar quality of care through telehealth as compared to in-person visits and 61% stated that the interaction with their physician was also similar. More than half of the patients (54%) were likely to continue using telehealth services after the pandemic mainly because of shorter wait and travel times (75%), flexibility with personal schedule (56%), and ease of scheduling appointments on a desired date (47%).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to health care has been limited for a great number of patients, and telehealth has been a useful and necessary tool in overcoming this challenge. Telehealth also promotes the triple aim of improving health care by improving the care experience, reducing cost, and improving patient and population health outcomes. Our findings showed a high level of overall patient and provider satisfaction following telehealth appointments. Telehealth increases access to care by decreasing travel time and cost, limiting missed workdays, and reducing the need to find alternative caregivers, especially among rural communities and people facing financial hardship. For a small subset of people who lack the resources, access to technology, or ability to do video visits, telephone-only visits are an appropriate option and should be preserved and reimbursed in some capacity.

From a patient perspective, convenience and decreased cost are often cited as major reasons for satisfaction with telehealth. This is of particular importance to people with limited mobility, nontraditional work hours, and lower socioeconomic status. For patients who use public transportation or caregivers to travel to appointments, a short appointment may require hours of logistical planning and may come at significant financial cost. Enabling these patients to interact with their providers from home would make accessing the health care system both less expensive and logistically less challenging.

One unexpected benefit of telehealth that I have experienced is the ability to “visit” the patients in their own surroundings. Many telehealth visits have allowed the doctor to make a “house call” and see the patients in their homes, cars, and break rooms. Observing the chaos in a home or an extremely quiet and dark space has given me insight into the role anxiety and depression might play in health conditions – which may have not been appreciated in a visit to my office.

The most memorable meeting was a man who was sitting in his kitchen while smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer for breakfast whose main complaint was heartburn. His life habits were obviously contributing to his heartburn, and this degree of insight would not have been appreciated during a traditional in-person office visit.

Congress is now contemplating the role telehealth will play in health care once the pandemic is over. The main concerns are abuse of telehealth by providers, leading to a dramatic rise in visits due to the ease of care delivery. This in turn can dramatically increase health care costs. The long-term health outcomes of patients seen through telehealth are also unknown and must be studied.

All these concerns are valid and must be addressed in future studies, but it would be a mistake for Congress to revert telehealth back to prepandemic regulations. We must move forward with this important innovation in care delivery.

The adoption of telehealth is one of few silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will never replace in-person visits but should be preserved as an additional tool we can use when in-person visits are not the best option. The future of U.S. health care must allow for a hybrid model so that patients and providers can continue to benefit from this valuable innovation. Patients, providers, and families will be forever grateful.
 

Naresh Gunaratnam MD, AGAF is a practicing gastroenterologist with Huron Gastroenterology in Ann Arbor, Mich. He also serves as the chair of data analytics as a member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association executive committee. Dr. Gunaratnam has no conflicts in telehealth. He is the founder of and CMO of a weight loss device company and service.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to be a global pandemic. Shortly after, federal regulators temporarily relaxed restrictions, raised Medicare payment for telemedicine visits to the same level as in-person visits, and waived or reduced cost sharing for patients. As pandemic-related regulations expire, policymakers are debating the need to address insurance coverage of telemedicine services going forward. Congress should consider the lessons learned over the past 20 months to ensure that health care providers have the flexibility to meet the needs of patients.

One of my early telehealth visits was with a patient in his 80s who spent nearly a month in the hospital after complex abdominal surgery. While at home with his daughter, it was the first visit to assess his progress after discharge from the hospital. We were able to address his concerns, assess his wounds using the video on his computer, and formulate a plan so he could continue to improve. At the end of the call, his daughter mentioned in passing, “Thank God we did not have to go to the office ... that would have been a nightmare.”

The nightmare would have consisted of driving her frail father 45 minutes to our office, spending 15 minutes to park, waiting for 30 minutes to be seen, and finally speaking with the physician for 30 minutes face-to-face. Following the appointment, my patient and his daughter would spend another 10 minutes checking out before the 45-minute drive home. Instead, they spent a few minutes logging on through a computer prior to the 30-minute visit from the comfort of their couch.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic loss, as well as changed the norms of social interaction. One of the many ways it impacted our health care system is through the exponential growth of telehealth – the use of telecommunication modalities, such as telephone and real-time video – to connect patients with clinicians for the purpose of providing health care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth was limited to populations with limited access to health care. Our practice had never performed telehealth, yet converted nearly exclusively to telehealth at the height of the pandemic. My colleagues and I were concerned about how patients and physicians would respond to the sudden disruption of norms of patient engagement.

To measure the response, we conducted an online survey of over 500 gastroenterologists and nearly 1,500 patients from March to May 2020 to assess their satisfaction with telehealth. Our published results demonstrated that more than 80% of patients and 90% of physicians surveyed were either satisfied or highly satisfied with telehealth. Surprisingly, these trends were true irrespective of age or the reason for a visit. Greater than 80% of patients also indicated that the provider addressed their concerns and that they were willing to participate in telehealth visits in the future.

In a subsequent survey of nearly 3,000 patients who had experience with telehealth and in-person visits, 73% of respondents indicated that they received a similar quality of care through telehealth as compared to in-person visits and 61% stated that the interaction with their physician was also similar. More than half of the patients (54%) were likely to continue using telehealth services after the pandemic mainly because of shorter wait and travel times (75%), flexibility with personal schedule (56%), and ease of scheduling appointments on a desired date (47%).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to health care has been limited for a great number of patients, and telehealth has been a useful and necessary tool in overcoming this challenge. Telehealth also promotes the triple aim of improving health care by improving the care experience, reducing cost, and improving patient and population health outcomes. Our findings showed a high level of overall patient and provider satisfaction following telehealth appointments. Telehealth increases access to care by decreasing travel time and cost, limiting missed workdays, and reducing the need to find alternative caregivers, especially among rural communities and people facing financial hardship. For a small subset of people who lack the resources, access to technology, or ability to do video visits, telephone-only visits are an appropriate option and should be preserved and reimbursed in some capacity.

From a patient perspective, convenience and decreased cost are often cited as major reasons for satisfaction with telehealth. This is of particular importance to people with limited mobility, nontraditional work hours, and lower socioeconomic status. For patients who use public transportation or caregivers to travel to appointments, a short appointment may require hours of logistical planning and may come at significant financial cost. Enabling these patients to interact with their providers from home would make accessing the health care system both less expensive and logistically less challenging.

One unexpected benefit of telehealth that I have experienced is the ability to “visit” the patients in their own surroundings. Many telehealth visits have allowed the doctor to make a “house call” and see the patients in their homes, cars, and break rooms. Observing the chaos in a home or an extremely quiet and dark space has given me insight into the role anxiety and depression might play in health conditions – which may have not been appreciated in a visit to my office.

The most memorable meeting was a man who was sitting in his kitchen while smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer for breakfast whose main complaint was heartburn. His life habits were obviously contributing to his heartburn, and this degree of insight would not have been appreciated during a traditional in-person office visit.

Congress is now contemplating the role telehealth will play in health care once the pandemic is over. The main concerns are abuse of telehealth by providers, leading to a dramatic rise in visits due to the ease of care delivery. This in turn can dramatically increase health care costs. The long-term health outcomes of patients seen through telehealth are also unknown and must be studied.

All these concerns are valid and must be addressed in future studies, but it would be a mistake for Congress to revert telehealth back to prepandemic regulations. We must move forward with this important innovation in care delivery.

The adoption of telehealth is one of few silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will never replace in-person visits but should be preserved as an additional tool we can use when in-person visits are not the best option. The future of U.S. health care must allow for a hybrid model so that patients and providers can continue to benefit from this valuable innovation. Patients, providers, and families will be forever grateful.
 

Naresh Gunaratnam MD, AGAF is a practicing gastroenterologist with Huron Gastroenterology in Ann Arbor, Mich. He also serves as the chair of data analytics as a member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association executive committee. Dr. Gunaratnam has no conflicts in telehealth. He is the founder of and CMO of a weight loss device company and service.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to be a global pandemic. Shortly after, federal regulators temporarily relaxed restrictions, raised Medicare payment for telemedicine visits to the same level as in-person visits, and waived or reduced cost sharing for patients. As pandemic-related regulations expire, policymakers are debating the need to address insurance coverage of telemedicine services going forward. Congress should consider the lessons learned over the past 20 months to ensure that health care providers have the flexibility to meet the needs of patients.

One of my early telehealth visits was with a patient in his 80s who spent nearly a month in the hospital after complex abdominal surgery. While at home with his daughter, it was the first visit to assess his progress after discharge from the hospital. We were able to address his concerns, assess his wounds using the video on his computer, and formulate a plan so he could continue to improve. At the end of the call, his daughter mentioned in passing, “Thank God we did not have to go to the office ... that would have been a nightmare.”

The nightmare would have consisted of driving her frail father 45 minutes to our office, spending 15 minutes to park, waiting for 30 minutes to be seen, and finally speaking with the physician for 30 minutes face-to-face. Following the appointment, my patient and his daughter would spend another 10 minutes checking out before the 45-minute drive home. Instead, they spent a few minutes logging on through a computer prior to the 30-minute visit from the comfort of their couch.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic loss, as well as changed the norms of social interaction. One of the many ways it impacted our health care system is through the exponential growth of telehealth – the use of telecommunication modalities, such as telephone and real-time video – to connect patients with clinicians for the purpose of providing health care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth was limited to populations with limited access to health care. Our practice had never performed telehealth, yet converted nearly exclusively to telehealth at the height of the pandemic. My colleagues and I were concerned about how patients and physicians would respond to the sudden disruption of norms of patient engagement.

To measure the response, we conducted an online survey of over 500 gastroenterologists and nearly 1,500 patients from March to May 2020 to assess their satisfaction with telehealth. Our published results demonstrated that more than 80% of patients and 90% of physicians surveyed were either satisfied or highly satisfied with telehealth. Surprisingly, these trends were true irrespective of age or the reason for a visit. Greater than 80% of patients also indicated that the provider addressed their concerns and that they were willing to participate in telehealth visits in the future.

In a subsequent survey of nearly 3,000 patients who had experience with telehealth and in-person visits, 73% of respondents indicated that they received a similar quality of care through telehealth as compared to in-person visits and 61% stated that the interaction with their physician was also similar. More than half of the patients (54%) were likely to continue using telehealth services after the pandemic mainly because of shorter wait and travel times (75%), flexibility with personal schedule (56%), and ease of scheduling appointments on a desired date (47%).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to health care has been limited for a great number of patients, and telehealth has been a useful and necessary tool in overcoming this challenge. Telehealth also promotes the triple aim of improving health care by improving the care experience, reducing cost, and improving patient and population health outcomes. Our findings showed a high level of overall patient and provider satisfaction following telehealth appointments. Telehealth increases access to care by decreasing travel time and cost, limiting missed workdays, and reducing the need to find alternative caregivers, especially among rural communities and people facing financial hardship. For a small subset of people who lack the resources, access to technology, or ability to do video visits, telephone-only visits are an appropriate option and should be preserved and reimbursed in some capacity.

From a patient perspective, convenience and decreased cost are often cited as major reasons for satisfaction with telehealth. This is of particular importance to people with limited mobility, nontraditional work hours, and lower socioeconomic status. For patients who use public transportation or caregivers to travel to appointments, a short appointment may require hours of logistical planning and may come at significant financial cost. Enabling these patients to interact with their providers from home would make accessing the health care system both less expensive and logistically less challenging.

One unexpected benefit of telehealth that I have experienced is the ability to “visit” the patients in their own surroundings. Many telehealth visits have allowed the doctor to make a “house call” and see the patients in their homes, cars, and break rooms. Observing the chaos in a home or an extremely quiet and dark space has given me insight into the role anxiety and depression might play in health conditions – which may have not been appreciated in a visit to my office.

The most memorable meeting was a man who was sitting in his kitchen while smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer for breakfast whose main complaint was heartburn. His life habits were obviously contributing to his heartburn, and this degree of insight would not have been appreciated during a traditional in-person office visit.

Congress is now contemplating the role telehealth will play in health care once the pandemic is over. The main concerns are abuse of telehealth by providers, leading to a dramatic rise in visits due to the ease of care delivery. This in turn can dramatically increase health care costs. The long-term health outcomes of patients seen through telehealth are also unknown and must be studied.

All these concerns are valid and must be addressed in future studies, but it would be a mistake for Congress to revert telehealth back to prepandemic regulations. We must move forward with this important innovation in care delivery.

The adoption of telehealth is one of few silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will never replace in-person visits but should be preserved as an additional tool we can use when in-person visits are not the best option. The future of U.S. health care must allow for a hybrid model so that patients and providers can continue to benefit from this valuable innovation. Patients, providers, and families will be forever grateful.
 

Naresh Gunaratnam MD, AGAF is a practicing gastroenterologist with Huron Gastroenterology in Ann Arbor, Mich. He also serves as the chair of data analytics as a member of the Digestive Health Physicians Association executive committee. Dr. Gunaratnam has no conflicts in telehealth. He is the founder of and CMO of a weight loss device company and service.

A Canadian woman was recently charged by police in Vancouver, British Columbia, with impersonating a registered nurse while working inside a local hospital. Online news reports indicate the suspect has a long history of similar deception in other locations in Canada and the United States dating back 30 years.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) charged the woman, who goes by the name of Brigitte Cleroux, 49, with fraud over $5,000 and personation with intent. VPD launched an investigation in June after learning that an employee at BC Women’s Hospital had fraudulently identified herself as a nurse while working there between June 2020 and June 2021, according to a VPD press release. At press time, Ms. Cleroux was in custody, and her next court appearance was set for Jan. 5, according to BC court records.

In June, the British Columbia College of Nurses & Midwives (BCCNM) issued a warning that Ms. Cleroux might be using aliases, including Melanie Smith. It stated that it had “received a report that Melanie Smith has held herself out as a registered nurse in British Columbia in order to seek employment in a hospital, dental surgery clinic, and in residential care.” The aliases included Melanie Thompson and Melanie Cleroux.

“This person has never been and is not a registrant of BCCNM and is not entitled to practice as a registered nurse in British Columbia.”

“Our detectives worked collaboratively with the Ottawa Police Service, which was conducting a parallel investigation into the same suspect,” said Constable Tania Visintin. “We don’t yet know how many people in Vancouver may have received treatment from the fraudulent nurse, but we’re working with the Provincial Health Services Authority to identify patients who may have had contact with her.”

Ottawa Police had charged Ms. Cleroux in September with more serious offenses of assault with a weapon and criminal negligence causing bodily harm along with “personation to gain advantage,” obtaining by false pretense, and using a forged document.

The charges followed an investigation into “personation, criminal negligence and fraud-related incidents after falsely gaining employment and conducting duties as a nurse at a medical and dental clinic in Ottawa. Some of those duties included the administration of medications, including injections, to patients,” police said in a statement.

“The investigation began when police were told that a woman had used aliases and assumed the identifies of registered nurses that she fraudulently obtained.” Police said they believed there might be other clinics and victims.

The College of Nurses of Ontario also issued a warning about Ms. Cleroux and a list of seven other aliases under the Ottawa region heading.

Ms. Cleroux’s past includes reports of a long string of deception dating back about three decades and including incidents in Florida and Colorado. Ms. Cleroux was in nursing school in Colorado but only competed 2 years of a 4-year nursing course and was never certified as a nurse, according to CBC Radio-Canada.

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

A Canadian woman was recently charged by police in Vancouver, British Columbia, with impersonating a registered nurse while working inside a local hospital. Online news reports indicate the suspect has a long history of similar deception in other locations in Canada and the United States dating back 30 years.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) charged the woman, who goes by the name of Brigitte Cleroux, 49, with fraud over $5,000 and personation with intent. VPD launched an investigation in June after learning that an employee at BC Women’s Hospital had fraudulently identified herself as a nurse while working there between June 2020 and June 2021, according to a VPD press release. At press time, Ms. Cleroux was in custody, and her next court appearance was set for Jan. 5, according to BC court records.

In June, the British Columbia College of Nurses & Midwives (BCCNM) issued a warning that Ms. Cleroux might be using aliases, including Melanie Smith. It stated that it had “received a report that Melanie Smith has held herself out as a registered nurse in British Columbia in order to seek employment in a hospital, dental surgery clinic, and in residential care.” The aliases included Melanie Thompson and Melanie Cleroux.

“This person has never been and is not a registrant of BCCNM and is not entitled to practice as a registered nurse in British Columbia.”

“Our detectives worked collaboratively with the Ottawa Police Service, which was conducting a parallel investigation into the same suspect,” said Constable Tania Visintin. “We don’t yet know how many people in Vancouver may have received treatment from the fraudulent nurse, but we’re working with the Provincial Health Services Authority to identify patients who may have had contact with her.”

Ottawa Police had charged Ms. Cleroux in September with more serious offenses of assault with a weapon and criminal negligence causing bodily harm along with “personation to gain advantage,” obtaining by false pretense, and using a forged document.

The charges followed an investigation into “personation, criminal negligence and fraud-related incidents after falsely gaining employment and conducting duties as a nurse at a medical and dental clinic in Ottawa. Some of those duties included the administration of medications, including injections, to patients,” police said in a statement.

“The investigation began when police were told that a woman had used aliases and assumed the identifies of registered nurses that she fraudulently obtained.” Police said they believed there might be other clinics and victims.

The College of Nurses of Ontario also issued a warning about Ms. Cleroux and a list of seven other aliases under the Ottawa region heading.

Ms. Cleroux’s past includes reports of a long string of deception dating back about three decades and including incidents in Florida and Colorado. Ms. Cleroux was in nursing school in Colorado but only competed 2 years of a 4-year nursing course and was never certified as a nurse, according to CBC Radio-Canada.

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

A Canadian woman was recently charged by police in Vancouver, British Columbia, with impersonating a registered nurse while working inside a local hospital. Online news reports indicate the suspect has a long history of similar deception in other locations in Canada and the United States dating back 30 years.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) charged the woman, who goes by the name of Brigitte Cleroux, 49, with fraud over $5,000 and personation with intent. VPD launched an investigation in June after learning that an employee at BC Women’s Hospital had fraudulently identified herself as a nurse while working there between June 2020 and June 2021, according to a VPD press release. At press time, Ms. Cleroux was in custody, and her next court appearance was set for Jan. 5, according to BC court records.

In June, the British Columbia College of Nurses & Midwives (BCCNM) issued a warning that Ms. Cleroux might be using aliases, including Melanie Smith. It stated that it had “received a report that Melanie Smith has held herself out as a registered nurse in British Columbia in order to seek employment in a hospital, dental surgery clinic, and in residential care.” The aliases included Melanie Thompson and Melanie Cleroux.

“This person has never been and is not a registrant of BCCNM and is not entitled to practice as a registered nurse in British Columbia.”

“Our detectives worked collaboratively with the Ottawa Police Service, which was conducting a parallel investigation into the same suspect,” said Constable Tania Visintin. “We don’t yet know how many people in Vancouver may have received treatment from the fraudulent nurse, but we’re working with the Provincial Health Services Authority to identify patients who may have had contact with her.”

Ottawa Police had charged Ms. Cleroux in September with more serious offenses of assault with a weapon and criminal negligence causing bodily harm along with “personation to gain advantage,” obtaining by false pretense, and using a forged document.

The charges followed an investigation into “personation, criminal negligence and fraud-related incidents after falsely gaining employment and conducting duties as a nurse at a medical and dental clinic in Ottawa. Some of those duties included the administration of medications, including injections, to patients,” police said in a statement.

“The investigation began when police were told that a woman had used aliases and assumed the identifies of registered nurses that she fraudulently obtained.” Police said they believed there might be other clinics and victims.

The College of Nurses of Ontario also issued a warning about Ms. Cleroux and a list of seven other aliases under the Ottawa region heading.

Ms. Cleroux’s past includes reports of a long string of deception dating back about three decades and including incidents in Florida and Colorado. Ms. Cleroux was in nursing school in Colorado but only competed 2 years of a 4-year nursing course and was never certified as a nurse, according to CBC Radio-Canada.

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

Which vaccines are contraindicated in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Which vaccines are contraindicated in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Which vaccines are contraindicated in pregnancy?

Continue to the answer...

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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