SACRAMENTO – With access to abortion at stake across America, California is preparing to become the nation’s abortion provider.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have asked a group of reproductive health experts to propose policies to bolster the state’s abortion infrastructure and ready it for more patients. Lawmakers plan to begin debating the ideas when they reconvene in January.

Abortion clinics are already girding themselves for a surge in demand.

Janet Jacobson, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said three or four out-of-state patients visit her clinics each day – about double the number that sought treatment before a near-total ban on abortion took effect in Texas in September.

While the nine clinics can absorb that slow trickle, they expect up to 50 out-of-state patients a week if the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority guts abortion rights nationally, Dr. Jacobson said. She bases her estimate on new data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion and reproductive health rights.

She is adding staff members and appointment capacity, hoping to accommodate everyone.

“We have to make sure we can still continue to care for all of our California patients,” Dr. Jacobson said. “We don’t want them getting squeezed out” of appointments.

The Texas law banned nearly all abortions after about 6 weeks of pregnancy and empowered private citizens to sue anyone who performs or “aids and abets” an abortion after that time. The Supreme Court heard arguments in that case on Nov. 1 and is expected to announce a ruling on its constitutionality in June. Nonetheless, Florida and Ohio have announced plans for copycat laws.

Next month the high court will hear another abortion case with even broader implications, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. If the court sides with Mississippi, its decision could overturn existing abortion rights set by the landmark Roe v. Wade case.

Should that happen, reproductive rights experts predict, 26 states will ban the procedure altogether, and states with stronger protections for abortion, like California, will draw even more patients. There could be up to a 3,000% increase in people who “may drive to California for abortion care” each year, according to the Guttmacher data.

In 2017, the most recent year for which data are available from Guttmacher, California – by far the nation’s most populous state – had more abortion providers than any other state, with 419 hospitals, clinics, or doctors’ offices performing the procedure. The next highest were New York, with 252, and Florida, with 85. Neighboring Arizona and Nevada each had 11. Of the 862,320 abortions performed in the United States that year, 132.680, about 15% were in California.

Planned Parenthood clinics in California say they already serve about 7,000 out-of-state patients a year and are expecting a surge of new ones, especially in travel hubs like the Los Angeles area.

In September, Planned Parenthood and groups such as Black Women for Wellness convened the California Future of Abortion Council with backing from influential Democratic leaders including Gov. Newsom, state Senate leader Toni Atkins, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Ms. Atkins, who was the director of a San Diego women’s health clinic in the 1980s, said she spent time with women from states where it was hard to get an abortion. She said California is committed to ensuring abortion access in the state and beyond.

The council is focused on increasing funding for abortion services, providing logistical and financial help for women who need to travel, increasing the number of health care providers who perform abortions, and strengthening legal protections for them.

Increasing capacity could mean licensing more practitioners to provide abortions or pumping more resources into telehealth so people can see a doctor online to prescribe pills for a medical abortion – a service California doctors currently can provide to patients only in California.

The most important thing the state should do is fix its shortage of providers, especially those who perform second-trimester abortions, which are more expensive and complicated than first-trimester abortions, said council member Daniel Grossman, MD, director of the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California, San Francisco.

It’s not feasible to place an abortion provider in every corner of the state, Dr. Grossman said. Instead, the council should focus on creating “hubs that can provide abortion care for large numbers of people” in easy-to-get-to locations.

California already struggles to provide abortions to all who seek them, especially low-income women covered by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. For example, 28 counties – home to 10% of Medi-Cal recipients of childbearing age – don’t have facilities that provide abortions to Medi-Cal patients.

A medical abortion, in which pills are used to terminate a pregnancy, costs California patients an average of $306 out-of-pocket, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, but isn’t available after 10 weeks. After that, the only option is a surgical abortion, which costs an average of $887 out-of-pocket in California.

One of the council’s recommendations will likely be to increase the rate Medi-Cal payments for abortions so more providers will perform them, said council member Fabiola Carrión, interim director for reproductive and sexual health at the National Health Law Program.

Medi-Cal pays $354.43 for a second-trimester abortion. A 2020 study in the journal Contraception found that states paid between $79 and $626 for a second-trimester abortion in 2017.

Increasing Medi-Cal rates won’t help patients traveling from outside California. Generally, private insurance doesn’t cover out-of-state abortions, so most women will be on the hook for the full cost, and those enrolled in other states’ Medicaid programs must pay out-of-pocket, too.

The council hopes to reduce costs for state residents and visitors, said Brandon Richards, director of communications for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “It’s about making it easy for people to access abortion in California, whether they reside here or are coming in from out of state,” he said.

One way to target costs is by funding the practical support, like helping to pay for transportation, child care, hotels, or time off work, said council member Jessica Pinckney, executive director of Access Reproductive Justice, a fund that helps people pay for abortions.

Ms. Pinckney said she’s working with Los Angeles County to set up a public abortion fund to cover some of those costs for anyone seeking an abortion in the county. It would be modeled after similar pots maintained by the cities of New York; Austin, Tex.; and Portland, Ore., and could eventually be a template for the first statewide fund, Ms. Pinckney said.

Most Texans seeking abortions since that state’s law took effect are going to nearby states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, said Sierra Harris, deputy director of network strategies for the National Network of Abortion Funds. Women in those states, in turn, are having trouble getting care and are looking to California for appointments.

Practical support is important for out-of-state patients, said Alissa Perrucci, PhD, MPH, operations manager at the Women’s Options Center at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, one of five abortion clinics inside California hospitals.

Dr. Perrucci’s clinic is focusing on telemedicine, phone counseling, and other ways to save time so it can add appointments for out-of-state patients if necessary.

But more slots are useless if women can’t make it to California. The clinic has booked about 10 appointments for Texans since the state’s ban went into effect, but only half have shown up, mostly women with family connections in California.

“Most people just don’t have the money to get here,” she said. “If the burden of abortion was borne predominantly by the wealthy, yeah, they’d just fly here.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO – With access to abortion at stake across America, California is preparing to become the nation’s abortion provider.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have asked a group of reproductive health experts to propose policies to bolster the state’s abortion infrastructure and ready it for more patients. Lawmakers plan to begin debating the ideas when they reconvene in January.

Abortion clinics are already girding themselves for a surge in demand.

Janet Jacobson, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said three or four out-of-state patients visit her clinics each day – about double the number that sought treatment before a near-total ban on abortion took effect in Texas in September.

While the nine clinics can absorb that slow trickle, they expect up to 50 out-of-state patients a week if the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority guts abortion rights nationally, Dr. Jacobson said. She bases her estimate on new data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion and reproductive health rights.

She is adding staff members and appointment capacity, hoping to accommodate everyone.

“We have to make sure we can still continue to care for all of our California patients,” Dr. Jacobson said. “We don’t want them getting squeezed out” of appointments.

The Texas law banned nearly all abortions after about 6 weeks of pregnancy and empowered private citizens to sue anyone who performs or “aids and abets” an abortion after that time. The Supreme Court heard arguments in that case on Nov. 1 and is expected to announce a ruling on its constitutionality in June. Nonetheless, Florida and Ohio have announced plans for copycat laws.

Next month the high court will hear another abortion case with even broader implications, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. If the court sides with Mississippi, its decision could overturn existing abortion rights set by the landmark Roe v. Wade case.

Should that happen, reproductive rights experts predict, 26 states will ban the procedure altogether, and states with stronger protections for abortion, like California, will draw even more patients. There could be up to a 3,000% increase in people who “may drive to California for abortion care” each year, according to the Guttmacher data.

In 2017, the most recent year for which data are available from Guttmacher, California – by far the nation’s most populous state – had more abortion providers than any other state, with 419 hospitals, clinics, or doctors’ offices performing the procedure. The next highest were New York, with 252, and Florida, with 85. Neighboring Arizona and Nevada each had 11. Of the 862,320 abortions performed in the United States that year, 132.680, about 15% were in California.

Planned Parenthood clinics in California say they already serve about 7,000 out-of-state patients a year and are expecting a surge of new ones, especially in travel hubs like the Los Angeles area.

In September, Planned Parenthood and groups such as Black Women for Wellness convened the California Future of Abortion Council with backing from influential Democratic leaders including Gov. Newsom, state Senate leader Toni Atkins, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Ms. Atkins, who was the director of a San Diego women’s health clinic in the 1980s, said she spent time with women from states where it was hard to get an abortion. She said California is committed to ensuring abortion access in the state and beyond.

The council is focused on increasing funding for abortion services, providing logistical and financial help for women who need to travel, increasing the number of health care providers who perform abortions, and strengthening legal protections for them.

Increasing capacity could mean licensing more practitioners to provide abortions or pumping more resources into telehealth so people can see a doctor online to prescribe pills for a medical abortion – a service California doctors currently can provide to patients only in California.

The most important thing the state should do is fix its shortage of providers, especially those who perform second-trimester abortions, which are more expensive and complicated than first-trimester abortions, said council member Daniel Grossman, MD, director of the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California, San Francisco.

It’s not feasible to place an abortion provider in every corner of the state, Dr. Grossman said. Instead, the council should focus on creating “hubs that can provide abortion care for large numbers of people” in easy-to-get-to locations.

California already struggles to provide abortions to all who seek them, especially low-income women covered by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. For example, 28 counties – home to 10% of Medi-Cal recipients of childbearing age – don’t have facilities that provide abortions to Medi-Cal patients.

A medical abortion, in which pills are used to terminate a pregnancy, costs California patients an average of $306 out-of-pocket, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, but isn’t available after 10 weeks. After that, the only option is a surgical abortion, which costs an average of $887 out-of-pocket in California.

One of the council’s recommendations will likely be to increase the rate Medi-Cal payments for abortions so more providers will perform them, said council member Fabiola Carrión, interim director for reproductive and sexual health at the National Health Law Program.

Medi-Cal pays $354.43 for a second-trimester abortion. A 2020 study in the journal Contraception found that states paid between $79 and $626 for a second-trimester abortion in 2017.

Increasing Medi-Cal rates won’t help patients traveling from outside California. Generally, private insurance doesn’t cover out-of-state abortions, so most women will be on the hook for the full cost, and those enrolled in other states’ Medicaid programs must pay out-of-pocket, too.

The council hopes to reduce costs for state residents and visitors, said Brandon Richards, director of communications for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “It’s about making it easy for people to access abortion in California, whether they reside here or are coming in from out of state,” he said.

One way to target costs is by funding the practical support, like helping to pay for transportation, child care, hotels, or time off work, said council member Jessica Pinckney, executive director of Access Reproductive Justice, a fund that helps people pay for abortions.

Ms. Pinckney said she’s working with Los Angeles County to set up a public abortion fund to cover some of those costs for anyone seeking an abortion in the county. It would be modeled after similar pots maintained by the cities of New York; Austin, Tex.; and Portland, Ore., and could eventually be a template for the first statewide fund, Ms. Pinckney said.

Most Texans seeking abortions since that state’s law took effect are going to nearby states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, said Sierra Harris, deputy director of network strategies for the National Network of Abortion Funds. Women in those states, in turn, are having trouble getting care and are looking to California for appointments.

Practical support is important for out-of-state patients, said Alissa Perrucci, PhD, MPH, operations manager at the Women’s Options Center at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, one of five abortion clinics inside California hospitals.

Dr. Perrucci’s clinic is focusing on telemedicine, phone counseling, and other ways to save time so it can add appointments for out-of-state patients if necessary.

But more slots are useless if women can’t make it to California. The clinic has booked about 10 appointments for Texans since the state’s ban went into effect, but only half have shown up, mostly women with family connections in California.

“Most people just don’t have the money to get here,” she said. “If the burden of abortion was borne predominantly by the wealthy, yeah, they’d just fly here.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO – With access to abortion at stake across America, California is preparing to become the nation’s abortion provider.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders have asked a group of reproductive health experts to propose policies to bolster the state’s abortion infrastructure and ready it for more patients. Lawmakers plan to begin debating the ideas when they reconvene in January.

Abortion clinics are already girding themselves for a surge in demand.

Janet Jacobson, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said three or four out-of-state patients visit her clinics each day – about double the number that sought treatment before a near-total ban on abortion took effect in Texas in September.

While the nine clinics can absorb that slow trickle, they expect up to 50 out-of-state patients a week if the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority guts abortion rights nationally, Dr. Jacobson said. She bases her estimate on new data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion and reproductive health rights.

She is adding staff members and appointment capacity, hoping to accommodate everyone.

“We have to make sure we can still continue to care for all of our California patients,” Dr. Jacobson said. “We don’t want them getting squeezed out” of appointments.

The Texas law banned nearly all abortions after about 6 weeks of pregnancy and empowered private citizens to sue anyone who performs or “aids and abets” an abortion after that time. The Supreme Court heard arguments in that case on Nov. 1 and is expected to announce a ruling on its constitutionality in June. Nonetheless, Florida and Ohio have announced plans for copycat laws.

Next month the high court will hear another abortion case with even broader implications, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. If the court sides with Mississippi, its decision could overturn existing abortion rights set by the landmark Roe v. Wade case.

Should that happen, reproductive rights experts predict, 26 states will ban the procedure altogether, and states with stronger protections for abortion, like California, will draw even more patients. There could be up to a 3,000% increase in people who “may drive to California for abortion care” each year, according to the Guttmacher data.

In 2017, the most recent year for which data are available from Guttmacher, California – by far the nation’s most populous state – had more abortion providers than any other state, with 419 hospitals, clinics, or doctors’ offices performing the procedure. The next highest were New York, with 252, and Florida, with 85. Neighboring Arizona and Nevada each had 11. Of the 862,320 abortions performed in the United States that year, 132.680, about 15% were in California.

Planned Parenthood clinics in California say they already serve about 7,000 out-of-state patients a year and are expecting a surge of new ones, especially in travel hubs like the Los Angeles area.

In September, Planned Parenthood and groups such as Black Women for Wellness convened the California Future of Abortion Council with backing from influential Democratic leaders including Gov. Newsom, state Senate leader Toni Atkins, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Ms. Atkins, who was the director of a San Diego women’s health clinic in the 1980s, said she spent time with women from states where it was hard to get an abortion. She said California is committed to ensuring abortion access in the state and beyond.

The council is focused on increasing funding for abortion services, providing logistical and financial help for women who need to travel, increasing the number of health care providers who perform abortions, and strengthening legal protections for them.

Increasing capacity could mean licensing more practitioners to provide abortions or pumping more resources into telehealth so people can see a doctor online to prescribe pills for a medical abortion – a service California doctors currently can provide to patients only in California.

The most important thing the state should do is fix its shortage of providers, especially those who perform second-trimester abortions, which are more expensive and complicated than first-trimester abortions, said council member Daniel Grossman, MD, director of the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at the University of California, San Francisco.

It’s not feasible to place an abortion provider in every corner of the state, Dr. Grossman said. Instead, the council should focus on creating “hubs that can provide abortion care for large numbers of people” in easy-to-get-to locations.

California already struggles to provide abortions to all who seek them, especially low-income women covered by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. For example, 28 counties – home to 10% of Medi-Cal recipients of childbearing age – don’t have facilities that provide abortions to Medi-Cal patients.

A medical abortion, in which pills are used to terminate a pregnancy, costs California patients an average of $306 out-of-pocket, according to an analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, but isn’t available after 10 weeks. After that, the only option is a surgical abortion, which costs an average of $887 out-of-pocket in California.

One of the council’s recommendations will likely be to increase the rate Medi-Cal payments for abortions so more providers will perform them, said council member Fabiola Carrión, interim director for reproductive and sexual health at the National Health Law Program.

Medi-Cal pays $354.43 for a second-trimester abortion. A 2020 study in the journal Contraception found that states paid between $79 and $626 for a second-trimester abortion in 2017.

Increasing Medi-Cal rates won’t help patients traveling from outside California. Generally, private insurance doesn’t cover out-of-state abortions, so most women will be on the hook for the full cost, and those enrolled in other states’ Medicaid programs must pay out-of-pocket, too.

The council hopes to reduce costs for state residents and visitors, said Brandon Richards, director of communications for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. “It’s about making it easy for people to access abortion in California, whether they reside here or are coming in from out of state,” he said.

One way to target costs is by funding the practical support, like helping to pay for transportation, child care, hotels, or time off work, said council member Jessica Pinckney, executive director of Access Reproductive Justice, a fund that helps people pay for abortions.

Ms. Pinckney said she’s working with Los Angeles County to set up a public abortion fund to cover some of those costs for anyone seeking an abortion in the county. It would be modeled after similar pots maintained by the cities of New York; Austin, Tex.; and Portland, Ore., and could eventually be a template for the first statewide fund, Ms. Pinckney said.

Most Texans seeking abortions since that state’s law took effect are going to nearby states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, said Sierra Harris, deputy director of network strategies for the National Network of Abortion Funds. Women in those states, in turn, are having trouble getting care and are looking to California for appointments.

Practical support is important for out-of-state patients, said Alissa Perrucci, PhD, MPH, operations manager at the Women’s Options Center at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, one of five abortion clinics inside California hospitals.

Dr. Perrucci’s clinic is focusing on telemedicine, phone counseling, and other ways to save time so it can add appointments for out-of-state patients if necessary.

But more slots are useless if women can’t make it to California. The clinic has booked about 10 appointments for Texans since the state’s ban went into effect, but only half have shown up, mostly women with family connections in California.

“Most people just don’t have the money to get here,” she said. “If the burden of abortion was borne predominantly by the wealthy, yeah, they’d just fly here.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) had no impact on the efficacy or safety of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, showing once again that agents in this class are appropriate for patients with heart failure even when their kidney function is severely compromised.

More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.

The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.

Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
 

An end to ‘renalism’

“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.   

In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).

“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.

EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.

In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.

These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.

“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.

In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
 

More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin

Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.

In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.

“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.

At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.

Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.

EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

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

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) had no impact on the efficacy or safety of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, showing once again that agents in this class are appropriate for patients with heart failure even when their kidney function is severely compromised.

More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.

The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.

Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
 

An end to ‘renalism’

“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.   

In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).

“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.

EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.

In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.

These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.

“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.

In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
 

More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin

Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.

In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.

“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.

At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.

Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.

EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

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

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) had no impact on the efficacy or safety of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, showing once again that agents in this class are appropriate for patients with heart failure even when their kidney function is severely compromised.

More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.

The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.

Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
 

An end to ‘renalism’

“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.   

In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).

“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.

EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.

In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.

These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.

“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.

In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
 

More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin

Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.

In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.

“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.

At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.

Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.

EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.

EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

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

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

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

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

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

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

Rituximab doses as low as 200 mg reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis to an extent that’s similar to the standard 1,000-mg dose during more than 3 years of follow-up, according to results from an extension study of a clinical trial in the Netherlands.

“We could not formally statistically show that the lower doses were less effective than the higher dose,” study leader Nathan den Broeder, MSc, a PhD candidate at St. Maarten Clinic and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “We concluded at this time that only 6% of patients needed to switch to another biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and that mean disease activity remained very low,” he said of the patients treated with 200- and 500-mg doses of rituximab.

The extension study included 118 of 142 patients in the REDO trial, following them from the start of the trial in 2017-2018 through April 2021. They were randomized to three treatment arms: the standard 1,000-mg dose (24 patients), a 500-mg dose (n = 48), and the 200-mg dose (n = 46). The mean follow-up was 3.2 years.

The study evaluated disease activity by mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), which during follow-up were 2.2-2.3 in the groups. Seven patients in the study cohort switched to a different DMARD, he said.

“On average, we saw a DAS28-CRP 0.15 points lower per 1,000 mg rituximab used in the past year,” Mr. den Broeder said in an interview. “For context, this is compared to a measurement error of about 0.6. A good response to a drug would be a reduction in DAS28-CRP of 1.2. This means we can just about get an effect that is bigger than the measurement error if we compare the highest dose in our study to the lowest one.” 

After a year, the median yearly rituximab dose was 978 mg, with an interquartile range of 704-1,425 mg. At the end of the study, 31% of patients took 200 mg every 6 months, 40% took 500 mg every 6.2 months, and 29% took 1,000 mg every 6.4 months.

“It’s important to note, though, this is in a situation where patients are given a dose based on disease activity,” Mr. den Broeder said. “That is, we try one dose; if the patient does well, we try a lower one; if not, we might go back up to a higher dose. We could expect somewhat larger differences if all patients were to be switched to a lower dose, regardless of whether that works well for them.”

The results were achieved without a high reliance on glucocorticoids (GCs), he said. Use of comedication in the extension study population was 0.38 GC injections per patient-year and starting or increasing an oral GC occurred at a rate of only 0.05 per patient-year.

“As a result of this study, we are now implementing a strategy of rituximab dose reduction in clinical practice at our center,” Mr. den Broeder said. Patients with RA start on a 1,000-mg dose for 6 months, and if they respond well they’re put on a 500-mg dose. If they respond well after 6 months on the 500-mg dose, they’re then moved to the 200-mg dose. “With this, we hope to gain that patients have fewer side effects,” he said. “We hope to reduce the cost of treatment, and also, what we instantly gain is that the infusion time for patients is also reduced.”

Future research considerations include evaluating the 200-mg dose as a subcutaneous injection. “Another thing you might think of as well: Are even lower doses possible?” he said.

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, professor of rheumatology and director of Experimental Medicine at the Centre for Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Manchester (England), asked if the investigators used CD19 testing to measure B-cell levels or immunoglobulin G levels to determine dose escalation.

Mr. den Broeder said that CD19 wasn’t used in clinical practice but was used in the original trial. However, it wasn’t found to have any predictive ability, while immunoglobulin G levels were measured in patients who had multiple infections. “Sporadically, a lower dose might have been initiated because of that, but not systematically,” he said.

Mr. den Broeder had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Buch reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

NEW ORLEANS – The increased use of digital screens for school during the COVID-19 pandemic may be causing convergence insufficiency in children, researchers say.

Although the long-term implications for current schoolchildren are not clear, convergence insufficiency sometimes persists for a lifetime, said Kammi Gunton, MD, interim chief of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia.

“It’s important, if we use digital technology for education, that we are aware that it might contribute to increased eye symptoms in children,” Dr. Gunton told this news organization.

Dr. Gunton’s colleague, Jordan Hamburger, an MD candidate at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, presented the finding at the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2021 Annual Meeting.

Convergence insufficiency is an impairment of binocularity. Symptoms include headaches while reading, words that seem to move around the page, blurriness, diplopia, and eye fatigue. It can be treated with exercise, prism glasses, or, rarely, surgery.

“We have some kids who improve with either time or maturity, then we have other patients who suffer from it for their entire lives,” Dr. Gunton said.

Previous research has linked the use of digital screens to convergence insufficiency, so when many schools shifted to distance learning for the pandemic, Dr. Gunton and her colleagues wanted to see whether it would have this effect on the students’ eyes.

They surveyed 110 healthy schoolchildren and adolescent students regarding eye symptoms before and after a day of virtual school. The mean age of the participants was 14 years (range, 10-17 years). The participants spent an average of 6.96 hours per day in virtual school. Forty-one percent also attended school in person part time. These students filled out the survey on days when they were in virtual school.

The participants answered questions on the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS). The survey consists of 15 questions about eye complaints. On each question, the students rated symptoms from 0 to 4, with 4 indicating a severe symptom.

The average sum of the CISS scores rose from 5.17 before school to 9.82 after school, a statistically significant change (P < .001). Sixty-one percent of the participants reported an increase in convergence insufficiency symptoms.

Seventeen percent scored a total of at least 16, which is the threshold score considered suggestive of convergence insufficiency.

The researchers also found that, on average, the more hours each student spent in virtual school, the higher their CISS scores.

This makes sense, because reading requires convergence, Dr. Gunton said. The same problem might occur in traditional school if the students were looking at books all day instead of focusing on objects at various distances in their classrooms, such as the teacher or the whiteboard. “So, in the past, if you read a book, maybe you wouldn’t read for several hours, but now we’re asking children during virtual learning to stay on a device with the camera on,” she said.

Previous research has shown that people blink less when reading or using electronic devices, probably because of their increased concentration. This might explain symptoms such as burning and itching. Fifty-three percent of the students reported an increase in asthenopia symptoms.

The researchers would have liked to have compared the students in virtual school to a matched group of students in traditional school. However, almost all students were enrolled in virtual school when the study was conducted, making such a control difficult.

Although previous research has related virtual learning to myopia, as reported by this news organization, this study did not investigate myopia, and the researchers do not believe that convergence insufficiency causes myopia or vice versa.

Parents can help prevent convergence insufficiency during school by reminding their children to take breaks, Dr. Gunton said. She recommends the 20/20/20 rule: After 20 minutes of work that involves looking at objects nearby, students should take a 20-second break and look at something 20 feet away.

“I also think the take-home message is for parents to ask students if they’re having symptoms,” she said, “and if they hear complaints while kids are on the computers, to have them see an eye doctor and have an evaluation.”

Stephen Lipsky, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said he is seeing more cases of eye strain at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where he is a consulting ophthalmologist.

“The study is very valuable in that it shines a light on the fact that these children do have symptoms, such as asthenopia or convergence insufficiency,” he told this news organization. “But I’m optimistic that with a return to more traditional learning, we will return the more traditional incidence of these problems.”

Dr. Gunton and Dr. Lipsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The increased use of digital screens for school during the COVID-19 pandemic may be causing convergence insufficiency in children, researchers say.

Although the long-term implications for current schoolchildren are not clear, convergence insufficiency sometimes persists for a lifetime, said Kammi Gunton, MD, interim chief of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia.

“It’s important, if we use digital technology for education, that we are aware that it might contribute to increased eye symptoms in children,” Dr. Gunton told this news organization.

Dr. Gunton’s colleague, Jordan Hamburger, an MD candidate at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, presented the finding at the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2021 Annual Meeting.

Convergence insufficiency is an impairment of binocularity. Symptoms include headaches while reading, words that seem to move around the page, blurriness, diplopia, and eye fatigue. It can be treated with exercise, prism glasses, or, rarely, surgery.

“We have some kids who improve with either time or maturity, then we have other patients who suffer from it for their entire lives,” Dr. Gunton said.

Previous research has linked the use of digital screens to convergence insufficiency, so when many schools shifted to distance learning for the pandemic, Dr. Gunton and her colleagues wanted to see whether it would have this effect on the students’ eyes.

They surveyed 110 healthy schoolchildren and adolescent students regarding eye symptoms before and after a day of virtual school. The mean age of the participants was 14 years (range, 10-17 years). The participants spent an average of 6.96 hours per day in virtual school. Forty-one percent also attended school in person part time. These students filled out the survey on days when they were in virtual school.

The participants answered questions on the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS). The survey consists of 15 questions about eye complaints. On each question, the students rated symptoms from 0 to 4, with 4 indicating a severe symptom.

The average sum of the CISS scores rose from 5.17 before school to 9.82 after school, a statistically significant change (P < .001). Sixty-one percent of the participants reported an increase in convergence insufficiency symptoms.

Seventeen percent scored a total of at least 16, which is the threshold score considered suggestive of convergence insufficiency.

The researchers also found that, on average, the more hours each student spent in virtual school, the higher their CISS scores.

This makes sense, because reading requires convergence, Dr. Gunton said. The same problem might occur in traditional school if the students were looking at books all day instead of focusing on objects at various distances in their classrooms, such as the teacher or the whiteboard. “So, in the past, if you read a book, maybe you wouldn’t read for several hours, but now we’re asking children during virtual learning to stay on a device with the camera on,” she said.

Previous research has shown that people blink less when reading or using electronic devices, probably because of their increased concentration. This might explain symptoms such as burning and itching. Fifty-three percent of the students reported an increase in asthenopia symptoms.

The researchers would have liked to have compared the students in virtual school to a matched group of students in traditional school. However, almost all students were enrolled in virtual school when the study was conducted, making such a control difficult.

Although previous research has related virtual learning to myopia, as reported by this news organization, this study did not investigate myopia, and the researchers do not believe that convergence insufficiency causes myopia or vice versa.

Parents can help prevent convergence insufficiency during school by reminding their children to take breaks, Dr. Gunton said. She recommends the 20/20/20 rule: After 20 minutes of work that involves looking at objects nearby, students should take a 20-second break and look at something 20 feet away.

“I also think the take-home message is for parents to ask students if they’re having symptoms,” she said, “and if they hear complaints while kids are on the computers, to have them see an eye doctor and have an evaluation.”

Stephen Lipsky, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said he is seeing more cases of eye strain at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where he is a consulting ophthalmologist.

“The study is very valuable in that it shines a light on the fact that these children do have symptoms, such as asthenopia or convergence insufficiency,” he told this news organization. “But I’m optimistic that with a return to more traditional learning, we will return the more traditional incidence of these problems.”

Dr. Gunton and Dr. Lipsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The increased use of digital screens for school during the COVID-19 pandemic may be causing convergence insufficiency in children, researchers say.

Although the long-term implications for current schoolchildren are not clear, convergence insufficiency sometimes persists for a lifetime, said Kammi Gunton, MD, interim chief of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus at Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia.

“It’s important, if we use digital technology for education, that we are aware that it might contribute to increased eye symptoms in children,” Dr. Gunton told this news organization.

Dr. Gunton’s colleague, Jordan Hamburger, an MD candidate at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, presented the finding at the American Academy of Ophthalmology 2021 Annual Meeting.

Convergence insufficiency is an impairment of binocularity. Symptoms include headaches while reading, words that seem to move around the page, blurriness, diplopia, and eye fatigue. It can be treated with exercise, prism glasses, or, rarely, surgery.

“We have some kids who improve with either time or maturity, then we have other patients who suffer from it for their entire lives,” Dr. Gunton said.

Previous research has linked the use of digital screens to convergence insufficiency, so when many schools shifted to distance learning for the pandemic, Dr. Gunton and her colleagues wanted to see whether it would have this effect on the students’ eyes.

They surveyed 110 healthy schoolchildren and adolescent students regarding eye symptoms before and after a day of virtual school. The mean age of the participants was 14 years (range, 10-17 years). The participants spent an average of 6.96 hours per day in virtual school. Forty-one percent also attended school in person part time. These students filled out the survey on days when they were in virtual school.

The participants answered questions on the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS). The survey consists of 15 questions about eye complaints. On each question, the students rated symptoms from 0 to 4, with 4 indicating a severe symptom.

The average sum of the CISS scores rose from 5.17 before school to 9.82 after school, a statistically significant change (P < .001). Sixty-one percent of the participants reported an increase in convergence insufficiency symptoms.

Seventeen percent scored a total of at least 16, which is the threshold score considered suggestive of convergence insufficiency.

The researchers also found that, on average, the more hours each student spent in virtual school, the higher their CISS scores.

This makes sense, because reading requires convergence, Dr. Gunton said. The same problem might occur in traditional school if the students were looking at books all day instead of focusing on objects at various distances in their classrooms, such as the teacher or the whiteboard. “So, in the past, if you read a book, maybe you wouldn’t read for several hours, but now we’re asking children during virtual learning to stay on a device with the camera on,” she said.

Previous research has shown that people blink less when reading or using electronic devices, probably because of their increased concentration. This might explain symptoms such as burning and itching. Fifty-three percent of the students reported an increase in asthenopia symptoms.

The researchers would have liked to have compared the students in virtual school to a matched group of students in traditional school. However, almost all students were enrolled in virtual school when the study was conducted, making such a control difficult.

Although previous research has related virtual learning to myopia, as reported by this news organization, this study did not investigate myopia, and the researchers do not believe that convergence insufficiency causes myopia or vice versa.

Parents can help prevent convergence insufficiency during school by reminding their children to take breaks, Dr. Gunton said. She recommends the 20/20/20 rule: After 20 minutes of work that involves looking at objects nearby, students should take a 20-second break and look at something 20 feet away.

“I also think the take-home message is for parents to ask students if they’re having symptoms,” she said, “and if they hear complaints while kids are on the computers, to have them see an eye doctor and have an evaluation.”

Stephen Lipsky, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said he is seeing more cases of eye strain at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where he is a consulting ophthalmologist.

“The study is very valuable in that it shines a light on the fact that these children do have symptoms, such as asthenopia or convergence insufficiency,” he told this news organization. “But I’m optimistic that with a return to more traditional learning, we will return the more traditional incidence of these problems.”

Dr. Gunton and Dr. Lipsky have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.

Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.

Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.

There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”

EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.

The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”

Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.

“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”

EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.

At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.

The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.

Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.

They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.

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

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.

Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.

Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.

There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”

EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.

The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”

Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.

“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”

EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.

At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.

The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.

Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.

They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.

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

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.

Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.

Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.

There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”

EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.

The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”

Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.

“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”

EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.

At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.

The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.

Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.

They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, new data show that risk for breast cancer recurrence extends past 30 years.

The data come from a Danish study involving 20,315 women who were treated for early operable breast cancer between 1987 and 2004, all of whom were disease-free at 10 years.

Further follow-up showed that 2,595 women had a breast cancer recurrence more than 10 years after their primary diagnosis.

The cumulative incidence of recurrence was 8.5% at 15 years; 12.5% at 20 years; 15.2% at 25 years, and 16.6% at 32 years.

Recurrence risk was greatest early in the study period.

Women who had primary tumors larger than 20 mm, lymph node-positive disease, and estrogen receptor-positive tumors were at higher risk for late recurrence.

“Such patients may warrant extended surveillance, more aggressive treatment, or new therapy approaches,” said the investigators, led by Rikke Pedersen, MD, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Our observed high cumulative incidence of late breast cancer recurrence is a concern given the increasing prevalence of long-term survivors.” Among other things, a new model to better select women for prolonged surveillance is needed, they said.

The new findings were published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

This study confirms previous investigations, but it is the first to report that breast cancer can recur more than 30 years after diagnosis, note the authors of an accompanying editorial, Serban Negoita, MD, DrPH, and Esmeralda Ramirez-Peña, PhD, MPH, both from the National Cancer Institute.

The caveat is that treatment has evolved considerably since the women in the study were diagnosed, so the prognostic value of the findings with current treatment regimens is uncertain, they note. Some studies haven’t found a recurrence benefit for aggressive upfront treatment, but those studies had shorter follow-ups.

Research into the issue is “increasingly important” to guide clinical management and counsel women who are living longer after their primary diagnosis, they comment.  
 

Further details from the study

Data for the study came from the Danish Breast Cancer Group clinical database and other national databases. The researchers focused on women who were disease-free at 10 years after their primary diagnosis, which was stage I or II disease. Median age was 55 years.

Cumulative incidence for breast cancer recurrence was highest for grade 1 tumors with four or more positive lymph nodes (37.9% 10-25 years after the primary diagnosis) and was lowest for patients with grade 3 disease and no involved lymph nodes (7.5%).

The finding of higher recurrence incidence with lower grade tumors goes against some previous reports, the researchers commented. It may be that some tumors considered lower risk decades ago, and treated accordingly, would be considered higher risk in more recent times.

The cumulative incidence of late recurrence was also higher in younger patients and those treated with breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, the team reported.

Adjusted hazard ratios followed the incidence trends, with higher hazards of recurrence for women diagnosed before age 40 as well as those who had breast-conserving surgery, four or more positive lymph nodes, and primary tumors 20 mm or more across.

The work was funded by the Danish Cancer Society and Aarhus University. Lead author Dr. Pedersen reports no disclosures, but coauthors report ties to Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and other companies. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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